Dedicated force required to protect judiciary

The importance of judicial protection was realised by the US Congress as early as 1789 by passing the ‘Judiciary Act’, creating the posts of 13 US Marshals. In 1870, the Department of Justice was created when US Marshals became part of the department. From 1890 onwards, they started protecting federal judges. US Marshals, in turn, have a staff of 5,600 court security officers to assist them in 94 federal courts.

Plug laxity: Attacks on judges have underlined the need for security measures. PTI

Vappala Balachandran

Author and columnist on security

On August 6, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said that a special protection force was needed to protect judges “in the light of rising instances of attacks, threats and intimidation of members of the judiciary”. This was supported by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on August 25, saying that the Supreme Court should invoke its powers under Article 146 of the Constitution to form a specialised security force for the protection of judges and lawyers of the higher and subordinate courts.

The BCI was joining with a PIL filed in 2019 on the frequent clashes at Tis Hazari courts in Delhi and the gunning down of the first woman chairperson of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the Agra court premises. The BCI also alleged that the security agencies “are not cooperating with the courts in true sense”, hinting that outside influence prevented them from taking protective measures.

The CJI’s remarks were during the Supreme Court’s suo motu hearing on the alleged mowing down of Additional Sessions Judge Uttam Anand on July 28 at Dhanbad. During this session, the CBI’s inadequate response to Andhra Pradesh High Court order on October 12, 2020, also came up. It was said that the CBI, even after registering an FIR on November 11, 2020, had not made any progress. The FIR (criminal defamation) was registered against some cadres of the ruling party (YSR Congress Party) for making offensive remarks against the judiciary.

NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant made scathing remarks against the Intelligence Bureau and the CBI for “not adequately responding to complaints regarding harassment and threatening of judges. In one or two places, courts ordered a CBI inquiry. It is sad to say that the CBI has done nothing.”

As against this, it was distressing to find that the responses from our governments were lackadaisical and evasive. On August 17, the Centre told the SC that it was not advisable to form a Central security force and that this responsibility should be left to the States. On August 30, the Jharkhand government told the SC that all judges were given security. If so, there was no explanation how Additional Sessions Judge Uttam Anand was killed on July 28.

This attitude of our governments, security and investigative machinery is disconcerting as they are failing to take prompt action on verbal and physical attacks on judiciary which is increasing. This compares very unfavourably with the alacrity they show in acting on orders from political level. They do not realise that the judiciary is the third pillar of our democracy along with the executive and the legislature.

None feels secure with the state government provided security. Till October 1984, our PM was “protected” by the local police. This system was abolished when Delhi Police guards assassinated Indira Gandhi. We created a special force only because of this incident and also because the quality of security differs from state to state. For example, the Maharashtra special counter terrorist forces failed to resist 10 terrorists on November 26, 2008, for a long time till the NSG came.

On August 10, 1986, General Arun S Vaidya, the decorated former Indian Army Chief, was gunned down in Pune while he was driving his private car with his lone police gunman in the rear seat. New York Times (August 9, 1986) quoted the then Pune police chief BJ Misar acknowledging that the security arrangements had failed despite serious threats to Vaidya’s life after Operation Blue Star.

Similarly, the Justice JS Verma Commission had found that the withdrawal of Special Protection Group (SPG) security to former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was the reason how the suicide bomber got access to the VIP, bypassing the Tamil Nadu police security on May 21, 1991. Verma had stated that the then Cabinet Secretary had withdrawn the SPG security on January 30, 1990 “without provision for suitable alternative for his proximate security which was not as a result of fresh assessment of threat justifying reduction”. Parliamentary debates revealed that all states would not have access to sophisticated explosives detection equipment as the SPG had.

The importance of judicial protection was realised by the US Congress as early as September 24, 1789, by passing the ‘Judiciary Act’, creating the posts of 13 US Marshals. In 1870, the Department of Justice was created when US Marshals became part of the department. From 1890 onwards, they started protecting the federal judges. In 2021, US Marshals provided security to 94 federal courts, 2,700 federal judges, 30,300 federal prosecutors and court officials and handled investigations in 4,261 “threats and inappropriate communications”.

US Marshals, in turn, have a staff of 5,600 court security officers to assist them in 94 federal courts for security screening through 110 security projects. They provide security to the witnesses, jurors, the visiting public, and transport prisoners to courts and back.

The ‘State Courts’ in 50 US states are protected by local sheriffs or others under the supervision of Court Security Committees or Judicial Councils. However, armed attacks on judges like the one in 2015 on Travis County District Judge in Texas have made the states to consult the National Center for State Courts for uniformity in protection arrangements.

Like in the US, our Constituent Assembly was keen to ensure that the judiciary is independent of the executive. It is the basic structure of our Constitution. A consultation paper prepared by the “National Commission to review the working of the Constitution on financial autonomy of the Indian judiciary” in 2001 had quoted several Supreme Court judgments on this: SP Gupta vs Union of India & Another (1981); Union of India & Others vs Pratibha Bonnerjea & Another (1995).

This cannot be achieved if the courts, including the higher courts, are forced to wait for the pleasure and mood of the executive, including the police to protect them and execute their decisions.