Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 14: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today directed the State to deploy security personnel for round the clock duty at the residence of former Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.
After hearing Senior Advocates Sunil Sethi, B S Salathia, Advocates Veenu Gupta, Meenakshi Salathia, Abhinav Sharma and Ajay Sharma for the PIL whereas Advocate General DC Raina assisted by Senior AAG Seema Shekhar and AAG WS Nargal appearing for the State, DB observed, “despite granting number of opportunities to the State-respondents, they have failed to show the category in which a sitting Judge of this High Court is placed immediately upon demitting the office”.
Accordingly, the DB directed the State to provide minimum 1 to 4 security guards for round the clock (8 hours duty) at the residence of each former Chief Justice/Judge of this High Court along with one Personal Security Officer to the retired Judge.
“Additional/enhancement of security cover shall be as per the threat perception”, the DB said, adding “so far as security cover to the retired District and Sessions Judges is concerned, the same shall be extended to one year on retirement and thereafter as per the report of Security Review Coordination Committee”.
The DB further directed the State to provide 1 to 3 security guards for round the clock at the residence of each former Advocate General of the State. However, one PSO shall be provided on demand and security can be enhanced as per threat perception as viewed by the Security Review Coordination Committee. “This order shall be implemented within a period of one week from today”, the DB said.
Division Bench further observed, “We have gone through the compliance report, wherein it is stated that there is no policy for providing of life time security cover to a retired Judge of this High Court after demitting office or minimum prescribed security by virtue of his/her being a retired Judge of this court in absence of any specific threat”.
“It is stated that the policy for provision of security cover is in accordance with the guidelines of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. However, it is stated, that security cover to the retired Judges of this High Court is on the basis of threat perception. Whereas as per the decision of Security Review Coordination Committee, all the sitting Judges of High Court are categorized as “Z” Category protectees. Further, the Presiding Officers of TADA/POTA courts have also been categorized as “Z” Category Protectee by the Security Review Coordination Committee”, the DB said.
“Although the State-respondents have stated in the fresh compliance report that there is no policy for providing life time security cover to a retired Judge of this High Court, however, they have failed to show the category in which a sitting Chief Justice/Judge of this High Court is placed immediately upon demitting Office. Unless such a category is specified, no question arises for enhancement or reduction of security cover based upon threat perception”, the DB said, adding “Chief Justices/Judges of this High Court on demitting office deserve moderately sufficient means to sustain themselves and the same would certainly help in strengthening judicial ethics and behavior. Therefore, they should not be placed in a situation where a cynical realization dawns, at least relating to threat perception”.
“Otherwise too, the State of J&K is facing a great turmoil in view of militancy/terrorists related activities. So there is every apprehension of facing veiled threats to the former Chief Justices/Judges of this court. Moreover, during their service tenure, the Judges deal with the cases of militancy/terrorists related activities. So, threat perception always remains there with the Judges. Therefore, the State of J&K cannot be treated at par with other States so far as dealing with the cases of militancy/terrorists related activities by the Judges of this State are concerned”, the DB observed.
“It is brought to our notice that so far as the retired Judge of this court, namely G D Sharma, is concerned, the Security Review Coordination Committee has categorized him as “Y” in J&K provisionally by order dated 29.02.2016. According to Advocate Ajay Sharma, the State has not implemented this order”, the DB observed while directing that the security be provided to the former Judge forthwith.
Follow our WhatsApp channel