- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh...
Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On States For Not Filing Affidavit In Case For Judges' Security
Mehal Jain
17 Aug 2021 4:32 PM GMT
The Court warned that if the States fail to file the counter within the given time, the Court will demand the presence of the concerned Chief Secretaries.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh, to be deposited in Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund, on states which failed to intimate the top court of the details of the measures for safeguarding the security of judges.The bench of CJI N. V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose required the states to file their responses within 10 days subject...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh, to be deposited in Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund, on states which failed to intimate the top court of the details of the measures for safeguarding the security of judges.
The bench of CJI N. V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose required the states to file their responses within 10 days subject to deposit of costs.
The bench warned that should the defaulting states fail to comply with the direction, the Court will demand the presence of the concerned Chief Secretaries.
The Bench was hearing the following three petitions:
- A writ petition was filed in 2019 seeking Special Security measures and a 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)
"Learned Solicitor General has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India on 14.Â9.Â2020", recorded the bench.
During the course of the hearing, the bench noted, the counsel appearing for the states of Manipur, Jharkhand & Gujarat state that they have filed their respective Counter Affidavits yesterday.
"Learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala prays for and is granted 10 days' time from today to file counter affidavit, subject to the condition that the said state shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/Â to be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund. The remaining States which have not filed their counter affidavits so far shall also file the same within a period of 10 days from today, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.1,00,000/Â with the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund, failing which we would be compelled to seek the presence of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States", said the bench.
Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India, is also permitted to file an affidavit and suggestions on this issue and one week's time is granted for the said purpose.
The bench listed the matters after 10 days.
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 Judge Uttam Anand, the Court had asked all States to respond and file a status report with respect to what kind of security they have provided to judicial officers.
Next Story
