The Union government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it was “not advisable” to form a Central security force to protect the judiciary and court complexes. The government said security of courts was “better left to the States”.
Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, said problems of security varied from State to State. The State police would be better equipped to gauge the deployment needs in local courts, take care of logistics of transporting criminals and protecting witnesses, among other crucial functions within court complexes. The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued extensive guidelines for the States to follow while protecting courts and the judiciary. Besides, Mr. Mehta said ‘police’ is a State subject under the Constitution.
The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the attacks on judges along with petitions pending since 2019 seeking better protection for the judiciary and in courts. The turning point was the recent murder of a judge in Jharkhand , Uttam Anand, in broad daylight. The case is under investigation by the CBI.
The court had asked the Centre’s opinion on forming a central security outfit in the manner of the Railway Protection Force to protect courts and judges.
“It is not advisable to have a central security force like the CRPF... There should be a fuller implementation of the guidelines of the Home Ministry. It is advisable that security is taken care of at the State level because problems vary from State to State. For example, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have naxal problems… It has to be State-specific instead of country-specific,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
But the court questioned the implementation of the guidelines and the poor security provided to courts.
“Question is whether the guidelines are followed and to what extent these governments are providing security… CCTVs cannot prevent a criminal from attacking a judge. There should be something in place to prevent threats, attacks on judges,” Justice Surya Kant, on the Bench, asked the Solicitor General.
‘Affidavits not filed’
Justice Kant said several States have not bothered to file affidavits detailing the security arrangements in place for courts. Others who had filed affidavits presented a “lazy picture” of the security arrangements. Their complaints ranged from lack of funds to even having no money for CCTV cameras.
“Meanwhile, attacks are continuing… Now the Supreme Court has to bear the burden of implementing your guidelines,” Justice Kant said.
The Bench allowed the States, including Kerala, to file their affidavits in 10 days subject to paying ₹1 lakh each as costs. The court warned that Chief Secretaries would be summoned in case of non-compliance.
Mr. Mehta suggested a meeting between the Union Home Secretary and the Home Secretaries or the Director Generals of Police of the States.
