New Delhi [India], March 24 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday told Senior officials from the Union Home Ministry, the Delhi government and the Delhi Police to sit together and review the question of security for district court judges within a week.
The direction was passed during the hearing of a petition filed by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi, which represents trial court judges.
Justice Manoj Jain underlined that the safety of judicial officers is a matter of great concern and cannot be taken lightly. The Court made it clear that the concerns raised in the petition are serious and require immediate attention. It also directed that a detailed report of the meeting be placed before it within two weeks.
The Court further said that while discussing the issue, the authorities should also examine what kind of protection is being given to judicial officers in other states.
The petitioner association has sought personal security officers (PSOs) for district judges along with proper security arrangements at their residences.
It pointed out that many judges travel without security and have faced incidents like stalking, threats and aggressive behaviour on roads. The plea also highlighted that judges regularly handle serious criminal cases, including gang-related matters, and there have even been instances of firing in court premises.
Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for the association, told the Court that several judges have been subjected to threats. He cited an incident where a woman judge was warned to remain silent if she wished to stay safe. He also informed the Court that states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat have already put security measures in place for judicial officers.
Representing the Delhi government, Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao acknowledged the importance of the issue and said the government would take an appropriate call.
The High Court also took note of the fact that the association had earlier submitted a representation to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, but there was no clarity on what action had been taken. The Court therefore asked the petitioner to include the Registrar General as a party in the case and directed that a status report on the representation be filed before the next date of hearing.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor