Declaring the High Court premises in Chennai and Madurai as “high security zones”, the State government promised additional security cover, but Chief Justice S.K. Kaul on Friday made an oral observation in the open court that he has lost confidence in State police.
Four days after the Madras High Court sought Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection to its premises, the State government submitted that the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench have been declared as “high security zones”. It guaranteed necessary security by deploying more number of police personnel and contended that Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection was not necessary.
Refusing to concur with the State government’s view, Chief Justice S.K. Kaul said: “I have lost confidence in the State police.” He, then, directed the Advocate General A.L. Somayaji to file his submissions through an affidavit.
Following a sit-in protest by 12 advocates demanding that Tamil be declared as the High Court’s official language on Monday, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, while initiating suo motu proceeding, called upon the authorities to take immediate steps to declare the HC premises a ‘high security zone’ and provide CISF security cover.
When the petition came up for hearing on Friday, the Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan submitted that the Central government was willing to provide CISF protection as directed by the court, but sought two weeks time to discuss the modalities with the State government.
While the hearing was on Friday, president of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) R.C. Paul Kanagaraj said, “Order must be restored in the High Court, but putting the premises under CISF cover is not the solution. We have a certain opinion on different police forces; we apprehend CISF protection would invite more issues.” He sought the court to discuss with the Bar before implementing security cover by any Central agency.
“Solution to a problem cannot be attained through force; amicable solution must be reached through consensus,” said noted advocate N.G.R. Prasad, who was also against CISF protection.
While the hearing was held in a heavily packed first court, the situation turned tense around noon as a young woman lawyer interrupted the proceedings over submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General. Annoyed by her interruption, the Chief Justice asked her to leave the court room if she was agitated and express her agitation outside the court hall.
Responding to the contentions made by the woman lawyer that “the court can initiate contempt proceeding against her if needed” the Chief Justice said, “The court will not succumb to browbeating. I can very well take contempt proceedings, but I don’t do that as I don’t believe in it.”
Directing the State government and other advocates who argued against CISF protection to file their submission through affidavits, the Bench posted the matter to October 12.
