The Court is hearing a suo motu case concerning the safety of the judge after the personal security officer’s (PSO) firearm was snatched in September 2024 at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, where the individual used the gun to commit suicide.
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has summoned Chandigarh SSP (Security & Traffic) Sumer Pratap Singh to appear next week and clarify his contradictory position regarding the threat perception to a High Court judge.
The Court is hearing a suo motu case concerning the safety of the judge after the personal security officer’s (PSO) firearm was snatched in September 2024 at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, where the individual used the gun to commit suicide.
Haryana IPS officer Manisha Chaudhary, who investigated the incident, informed a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh that the event was unrelated to the judge and a closure report was being filed.
Earlier, A bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal described the incident as a significant security lapse and instructed the Punjab Director General of Police to appear before the court via video conferencing on Wednesday.
The firearm used in the incident belonged to an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) who was accompanying the judge during a visit to the Golden Temple.
A police officer informed,
“The bullets penetrated his head, and he died instantly. The police transported the body to a hospital,”
Additional Advocate General Saurav Khurana, representing the State of Punjab, instructed to gather details regarding the incident.
However, the Court noted a sealed report from Chandigarh Police suggesting that the incident had increased the threat perception concerning the judge. This stance contradicted the investigation findings.
The Court remarked, “The investigation concludes the incident is unrelated to the judge, yet you claim it has raised a threat perception. How can two conflicting positions be taken?”
Counsel for the Chandigarh Administration proposed reevaluating the threat and updating the report after consulting Haryana Police. The Bench expressed skepticism about this approach, questioning whether the police could withdraw statements submitted to the Court.
Highlighting the lack of coordination, the Court asked, “Is there no communication between the officer and other agencies?” The UT counsel responded that the officer was acting cautiously regarding the judge’s safety.
The Court, unsatisfied with the explanation, summoned the SSP to personally address the matter.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State of Punjab and others
Read Previous Hearing
Man Kills Himself at Golden Temple| Punjab & Haryana HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
