Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 28: Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice B S Walia today said that decision on providing security to the retired Judges of the High Court as well as Subordinate Judiciary shall be taken by an appropriate authority constituted for the purpose as it is not the function of the court either to give nor not to give security coverage to a particular person under threat perception.
This judgment was delivered by the Division Bench while allowing the modifications sought by the State Government in the earlier order of the court dated March 14, 2016 delivered in an application filed in the PIL titled Bar Association Jammu Versus State and Others and Sumit Nayyar Versus State and Others.
Vide its order dated March 14, 2016, the Division Bench had directed the State to provide minimum 1-4 security guard personnel round the clock (8 hour duty) at the residence of each former Chief Justice/Judge of High Court along with one personal security officer to the retired Judge; additional/ enhancement of security cover shall be as per the threat perception; extension of security cover to the retired District & Sessions Judges to one year on retirement and thereafter as per the report of Security Review Coordination Committee (SRCC) and deployment of 1-3 security guard personnel round the clock at the residence of each former Advocate General of the State.
Seeking modifications in this order, Additional Advocate General, Wasim Sadiq Nargal, appearing for the State, submitted that respondents had already submitted relevant record in sealed cover which amongst other things indicated the names of the former Chief Justice and Judges who stood categorized under categories such as X, Y, Z and Z+.
“Chief Justices and Judges after demitting office are provided security as per categorization by Security Review Coordination Committee and Judges, who have recently demitted the office, have been provided security of the same category which they had prior to demitting office till the matter is placed before the Security Review Coordination Committee for the purpose of decision in light of the threat perception”, he further submitted.
AAG Nagral also invited attention of the Division Bench to Clause 3.3 of the “Yellow Book” which states that provisions for the security of Judges of the High Court on demitting office will be subject to evaluation of threat perception by the Committee constituted for this purpose. “The relevant Book deals with the subject and security related issues prevalent all over the country. There is only “Yellow Book” throughout the country which governs the security related issues as per the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India”, he further submitted.
“The State and more particularly the agencies of the State dealing with the security are fully conscious and aware of these aspect and therefore, in unequivocal terms submit that no effort has been spared in providing the security to the Chief Justices and Judges after demitting office. The directions regarding providing minimum 1-4 security guard personnel round the clock (8 hour duty) at the residence of each former Chief Justice/Judge of this High Court along with one personal security officer is beyond the scope of assessment of threat perception by the Security Review Coordination Committee as Chief Justice and Judges after demitting office have to continue with one category down for a period of six months or till decision of Security Review Coordination Committee on the basis of threat perception”, AAG Nargal said.
Stating that providing security cover to the protected persons is domain of the Security Review Coordination Committee, he invited the attention of the court to the decision of Division Bench in PIL No: 1012/2001 and PIL No: 587/2000. Vide this decision, the DB has directed that providing of security shall always be taken by an appropriate authority constituted for the purpose and it is not the function of the court either to give or not to give security coverage to a particular person under threat perception. He further said that direction passed on 14.3.2016 was in conflict with the judgment of the Division Bench passed in PIL No: 1012/2001 and PIL No: 587/2000 on 2.4.2002.
The counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners was pointedly asked as to whether this court has any mechanism in place to assess the threat perception of any person/authority to provide security as mentioned in order passed on 14.3.2016 when same is in conflict with the judgment of Division Bench passed on 2.4.2002.
After hearing both the sides, the DB allowed the application and in modification of direction dated 14.3.2016, directed the respondents to follow direction passed by the Division Bench on 2.4.2002 while disposing of PIL No: 1012/2001 and PIL No: 587/2000. “The respondents are further directed to maintain order passed on 14.3.2016 and provide security to former Chief Justices and Judges of this court along with other authorities in the manner directed till matter is placed before the Security Review Coordination Committee for their categorization on the basis of threat perception and therefore, provide security accordingly”, the DB said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel