The Supreme Court on Friday said Central agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Intelligence Bureau and State police forces chose to ignore complaints from judges about abusive messages and threats even as attacks on the judiciary were on the rise.
The court suggested the formation of a special force to protect judges, especially trial judges who decide criminal cases involving high-profile accused.
A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice Surya Kant said, “In criminal cases involving gangsters and high profile persons, when the accused do not get expected orders from the courts, they start maligning the judiciary. Unfortunately, this is a new trend developing in this country.”
A situation is created where the judges do not feel free to make a complaint. Even if the judges complain to the district judge, Chief Justice of the HC or the CJI, and a complaint is forwarded to the police or the CBI, they do not respond. They do not think it is a priority issue, the bench said.
The court asked the A-G to take “personal interest” in the issue so that the judiciary could get some help from the investigating agencies.
Venugopal, on his part, replied that judges are indeed more vulnerable than bureaucrats because of their nature of duties and that it is time some strong measures are put in place to protect judges.
Referring to a 2019 case relating to security of judges and court premises, the bench said that the Centre and states are yet to file their responses narrating how they will ensure safety inside and outside court premises. It requested the A-G to have a proper affidavit filed by the Union government in this regard.
About the Jharkhand’s case, the bench remarked that the state was “negligent”. “Look at this unfortunate case of death of a young judge. You cannot ignore the state’s negligence. This is the state’s failure. This area has coal mafias and security should have been provided to the society and residences of judges. But nothing was done,” it commented.
At this point, Ranjan submitted that societies and homes of judicial officers have been given security of police and protection force and that all the required steps were being taken.
The court then adjourned the matter for Monday, seeking the presence of the CBI in the matter to apprise it of the status of the probe into Anand’s death case.
On July 30, the bench had emphasised that it is the State’s obligation to protect judges to ensure they can discharge their duties fearlessly as it took suo motu (on its own motion) cognisance of Anand’s death. Registering the suo motu case as ‘In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad)’, the court had directed chief secretary and director general of police, state of Jharkhand to jointly submit a status report of inquiry within a week.
“In one or two places, the court ordered a CBI inquiry. I am very sorry to say that CBI has done nothing in more than one year. At one place, I know, CBI has done nothing. I think we expected some changes in CBI’s attitude. But there is no change in the attitude of CBI. I am sorry to observe this but this is the situation,” the CJI told attorney general KK Venugopal, who was called by the bench for assistance.
The bench, which also comprised justice Surya Kant, was hearing public interest litigation registered on its own over the death of additional district and sessions judge Uttam Anand, who was fatally knocked down by a vehicle on July 28 in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad.
As it inquired from Jharkhand’s advocate general Rajiv Ranjan about the safety being provided to the judicial officers in the state, the bench vented out in anguish over the lack of help from police, CBI and IB. While Ranjan said that the probe into Anand’s death has been handed over to the CBI due to possibilities of an inter-state angle, the bench pointed out that the CBI has not done anything in cases where judges reached out to them with complaints.
About the Jharkhand’s case, the bench remarked that the state was “negligent”.
“Look at this unfortunate case of death of a young judge. You cannot ignore the state’s negligence. This is the state’s failure. This area has coal mafias and security should have been provided to the society and residences of judges. But nothing was done,” it commented.
At this point, Rajiv Ranjan said that societies and homes of judicial officers have been given security cover by the police and all required steps were being taken.
The court then adjourned the matter for Monday, seeking the presence of CBI in the matter to apprise it of the status of the probe into the death of the Dhanbad sessions judge.
The bench emphasised the State’s obligation to protect judges to ensure they can discharge their duties fearlessly on July 30 as it registered the suo motu (on its own motion) case, ‘In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad)’.
