The Delhi High Court criticised Delhi Police and the government for failing to ensure proper security for judicial officers, calling their approach “insensitive.” The Court stressed that lack of protection for judges directly threatens judicial independence and demanded urgent corrective measures.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the Delhi government and the Delhi Police for failing to ensure proper security arrangements for judicial officers in the national capital. The observations came while hearing a petition filed by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi.
The petition sought the deployment of Personal Security Officers (PSOs) and better security arrangements for judges, especially at their residences. The Court emphasised that judicial officers must be able to perform their duties without fear or threat, and any lapse in ensuring their safety directly impacts the independence of the judiciary.
Justice Manoj Jain did not hold back in expressing dissatisfaction with the approach of the authorities. He termed the response of the government as lacking sensitivity and showed concern over the continued neglect of such an important issue. During the hearing, he remarked:
“It’s high time. If we can provide them with court staff, we can provide them with PSO. What stops a city like Delhi where the crime is alarmingly high? Why such apathy? “Hume bureaucrat ko bhi dena padega” [we will then have to provide security to bureaucrats also] what is this answer? You are compromising with the independence of judiciary.”
The Court was also reviewing the minutes of a meeting that had been earlier directed to be held among senior officials of the Delhi government, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Delhi Police. However, after going through the minutes of the meeting dated April 13, the Court found the approach unsatisfactory and lacking seriousness.
Raising concerns about the safety environment for judges, the Court observed:
“You want someone to be first threatened, assaulted, only then you will come to the rescue? You don’t want to create an atmosphere where they can freely roam on the roads. You don’t want to create that atmosphere for them,”
Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for the Judicial Service Association, informed the Court that several other states such as Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Gujarat are already providing security to judicial officers. He also pointed out that many judges in Delhi travel on their own and have faced incidents like stalking, verbal abuse, and threats, which makes the demand for PSOs both reasonable and necessary.
On behalf of the Delhi Police, Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao submitted that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has already written to the Registrar General and is in the process of collecting data regarding the residential arrangements of judicial officers.
However, the Court questioned the justification given by the authorities, especially regarding financial burden, and made it clear that security cannot be denied on such grounds. It stated:
“Tell me, are you doing any charity by providing security when there is threat perception? How do you say, one only difficulty is that there could be burden to exchequer. The question is, where somebody is moving in a private vehicle or official vehicle then what are these steps which are being taken. They are asking for PSO virtually round the clock. It is a legitimate demand,”
The Court also noted an important lapse in the earlier meeting — the Principal Secretary of the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs was not even invited, which further reflected the casual approach of the authorities.
Taking serious note of the situation, the Court refused to accept the minutes of the previous meeting and directed that a fresh meeting be conducted within seven days with all relevant stakeholders. It also instructed the authorities to come back with practical and effective suggestions to ensure the safety of judicial officers.
Clearly expressing its dissatisfaction, the Court concluded:
“We are permitting you to hold another meeting. Come with some good suggestions, this will not work. Within 7 days. We are not taking this on record [minutes of meeting]. As Mr Uppal said, insensitive approach. You cannot say that we will provide security, you only to those court who are exercising criminal jurisdiction. That is also not acceptable. Please make best effort.”
The matter will now be taken up for further hearing on May 12.
Case Title:
Judicial Service Association of Delhi v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors
Click Here to Read More On Judges’ Security
