NATIONAL SPECIAL FORCE TO PROTECT JUDGES IS NOT FEASIBLE: CENTRE
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed distress over rising incidents of attacks on judges even as the Union government maintained that there is no need to have a nationallevel security force to protect judges and court precincts. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, was reviewing the safety measures for protection of judges after Dhanbad additional district and sessions judge Uttam Anand died in an alleged case of hit-and-run.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed distress over rising incidents of physical and verbal attacks on judges throughout the country, even as the Union government maintained that there is no need to have a national-level security force to protect judges and court precincts.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, was informed by the government that constituting a dedicated unit nationally for the protection of judges is “neither advisable nor practical”.
The bench, which also included justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, was taking stock of the safety measures put in place and those being contemplated by the Centre and states for the protection of judges in the wake of the death of additional district and sessions judge Uttam Anand, who was fatally knocked down by a vehicle on July 28 in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad.
A 2019 public interest litigation,
filed by Karunakar Mahalik for a specialised force for security to all courts, judges, lawyers, litigants and witnesses in the country, was heard along with the case registered by the court suo motu (on its own motion) over the death of the Dhanbad judge. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the bench that there are guidelines issued by the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) to all the states and Union Territories in 2007 and reiterated in 2020 for creating special units within the state police forces.
“Public order and police are state subjects. The central government has already provided a broad mechanism. If the states were to adhere to the MHA guidelines in letter and spirit, much of the problems will be resolved. The security has to be state-specific. From coordination to efficacy, it is more advisable that states have special units. States have their own peculiar problems and they can deal with the specific issues relating to the safety of judges by having their own modules,” said the SG.
The bench, however, pointed out that the issues are not with the guidelines but with their implementation. “Guidelines are fine but the question is whether these guidelines are followed or not, and if yes, to what extent. The Supreme Court has to bear the burden to see your guidelines are implemented. You are the central government. You can call their secretaries, DGPS and supervise the implementation,” it told Mehta.
The court observed that the central government “is in the best position to ensure implementation of its guidelines” after resolving issues relating to funds, installation of CCTV cameras, manner of implementation, etc., with the state governments.
“You have to think how things have to be effectively done... You have to take this forward with the states,” it told Mehta.
The court also took umbrage at the failure of various states in not filing their reply affidavits to Mahalik’s petition despite the passage of more than a year and imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each on such defaulting states. These included Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Meghalaya and Mizoram. The bench clarified that it would be compelled to seek the presence of the chief secretaries of the states concerned if they fail to file affidavits within 10 days.
About the states which filed their affidavits, the bench remarked: “We are very sorry to say that all states have tried to paint a rosy picture but the truth is that incidents are repeatedly occurring despite all the statements. That is why we want the SG to step in. We want the central government to ensure the safety of judicial officers.”
The court underlined that some concrete steps are required to prevent the crimes.