National Level Special Force To Protect Judges Not Feasible; Security Of Courts Better Left To States : Centre Tells Supreme Court

It is not feasible or advisable to have a dedicated national level security force in the lines of the Central Industrial Security Force or the Railway Protection Force for the protection of judges and courts , the Central Government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.The Centre made this submission in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court in the wake of the killing of an Additional District Judge in Dhanbad in Jharkhand few weeks ago.Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the state police will be in a better position to deal with the protection of judges and courts as the threats will be "state-specific"."The security of courts is better left to states, as it requires day to day coordination with the local police. From coordination point of view, deployment of local police is advisable. There can be state specific issues. The state police is better equipped to deal with surveillance off criminals, intelligence regarding threat etc. It has to be state specific instead of country specific", the SG said.The Solicitor General made these submissions when the bench led by the Chief Justice of India asked if it was possible to have a specialized national force for judges' security in the lines of RPF, CISF etc.The SG further said that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has issued broad guidelines to the states regarding protection of courts and judges."Policing is a state subject but the central government has an inbuilt model which the states have to follow. A specialized branch of police must be there to look after the protection of judges and courts", the SG continued. The top law officer of the Centre read out portions of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs in this matter.The bench led by the Chief Justice of India asked the SG if the Centre has ensured that the guidelines are being followed by the State Governments."These are administrative issues for you to take decisions on, we can't guide that do this do that. You've to decide with the States", the Chief Justice of India added."The guidelines are fine, parameters have been laid down etc. But the question is if they are being followed or not and to what extent protection has been provided to Judges, lawyers etc. You are the central govt, you can call DCPs of states and ask for reports", Justice Surya Kant observed.In response, the Solicitor General said that he will talk to the Union Home Secretary to have a meeting with the State DGPs and State Home Secretaries regarding the implementation of the guidelines."What we can do is Home Secretary Will convene a meeting of all Home Secretary of states or director general of states. I'll talk to Home Secretary and give my suggestion", the SG said.The bench also noticed that several state governments have not filed their counter-affidavits in the matter. The bench has given a stern direction to the States to file the counter by the next date, failing which the Chief Secretaries will be summoned. The matter will be heard after 10 days. A Bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing a batch of pleas regarding protection and security of Judicial Officers in the country, in the backdrop of recent death of Justice Uttam Anand in Dhanbad. The Bench was hearing the following three petitions: A writ petition filed in 2019 seeking Special Security measures and dedicated Security Force for the protection of judges, litigants, advocates and the persons involved in the justice delivery system of Court premises in all Indian Courts. (Karunakar Malik vs Union of India) Suo motu case regarding the killing of an Additional District Judge in Jharkhand, Uttam Anand, who was knocked down by a vehicle while on his morning jog at Dhanbad on July 28 ( In Re Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges- Death of Additional Session Judge, Dhanbad) Plea seeking directions to immediately enforce and initiate guidelines and directions for the protection of the judicial officers, advocates and legal fraternity as a whole and grant of 'X' Category Security to the Judicial Officers in their respective States of Posting. (Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India) On the last occasion, the Bench had directed the suo motu case to be tagged along with another writ petition which was filed before the top Court in 2019 pertaining to the security of Judicial officers where notice has already been issued notice to States and Union of India. "We expect you all file counter in that also", the bench told the Union and the States. The Supreme Court had earlier also sought the early response of the Union of India to a writ petition filed in 2019, seeking a special protection force for judges and courts. The CJI had said that though the writ petition was filed in 2019, the Centre is yet to file its counter-affidavit. Further, while flagging the State of Jharkhand's negligence in the case of...

National Level Special Force To Protect Judges Not Feasible; Security Of Courts Better Left To States : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Srishti Ojha

Tags