The Punjab and Haryana High Court Today (Aug 28) started a suo motu case on denial of security to judicial officers in Chandigarh. The Court has asked the UT Administration to reply within two weeks.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken up on its own a very important matter regarding the safety of judicial officers who are working at the High Court in Chandigarh.
The Court has registered a suo motu case after it came to light that some judicial officers posted with the High Court registry were not being given proper security cover.
The issue was first highlighted through a resolution passed by the High Court’s building committee on August 4, which clearly mentioned the problem of denial of security personnel.
During the discussion before the committee, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Chandigarh, informed that there was a shortage of staff and that is why security guards could not be provided.
Hearing the matter, a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry strongly observed that the responsibility to ensure full safety and security of judicial officers lies completely with the Union Territory (UT) Administration of Chandigarh.
The Bench noted that judicial officers, who perform sensitive duties and handle important cases, must be given adequate security because their safety is directly connected with the smooth functioning of the judicial system.
The Court remarked that the Administration cannot deny security on the ground of shortage of staff as it is a matter of law and order, and proper protection must always be given.
The High Court has now directed the Chandigarh Administration to file a detailed reply in this matter. The Court has specifically asked for the affidavit of the Director General of Police (DGP), Chandigarh, to be submitted within two weeks.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS & SECTIONS (Referred / Connected to the Case)
| Law / Provision | Section / Article | Relevance to the Case | Explanation in Simple Words |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitution of India | Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty | Judicial officers’ right to life and security is protected under this article. | Every person, including judges, has the fundamental right to live with dignity and safety. |
| Constitution of India | Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs | Suo motu case was taken by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. | High Courts can step in on their own (suo motu) to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice. |
| Constitution of India | Article 227 – Power of Superintendence | The High Court can supervise the working of all courts under it. | Ensuring security of judicial officers is part of protecting the judiciary’s independence. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Section 23 & 24 – Role of Police (DGP/SSP) | Directs that police officers maintain law and order and provide security. | The Court directed DGP Chandigarh to give affidavit because police are bound to ensure protection. |
| Police Act, 1861 / Chandigarh Police Rules | General Duty of Police | Responsibility of Chandigarh Police to provide protection to judges. | Police are legally required to safeguard lives of people, especially those in sensitive public duty. |
| Judges Protection Act, 1985 | Section 3 – Protection to Judges | Provides legal immunity and indirectly implies need for protection. | Judges cannot be sued for acts done in official capacity, and their safety is essential for independence. |
CASE TITLE:
Court On Its Own Motion vs UT Chandigarh.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Judges Safety
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
