Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt to hear suo motu cases tiled RE : SAFEGUARDING COURTS AND PROTECTING JUDGES (DEATH OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DHANBAD) which was registered after a Jharkhand judge was mowed down by a speeding vehicle

#suomotu #judgessafety @HemantSorenJMM

SG Tushar Mehta: its a serious matter. it concerns safeguarding courts and protecting judges

CJI: No counter has been filed

SG: We have filed a counter and we will read it.

SG: We have laid down a mechanism for your kind perusal. Its served upon the states.
#supremecourt

Adv VK Biju: my plea is regarding protection of advocates also

CJI: Please wait

SG: Please turn to para 9 of the affidavit. we have an inbuilt mechanism mandatory for states to follow

SG: Despite the same guidelines were issued by the MHA in 2007 saying there should be special unit to look after security of judges. This state special branch will have intelligence and home dept. It will review the security given and registrar general of HC can also oversee

SG: Judiciary's oversight is inbuilt in the mechanism. these special units have to be created by the states and union territories In 2020 these guidelines were reiterated. hence new revised system is not needed #supremecourt

CJI: one of the areas is are your talking about protection the form of special protection force like Railway protection force etc. what states are doing is a separate issue. This is all administrative issues Mr Mehta. we cant say do this and do that.

CJI: You can call states and take a decision how problem will be dealt with

SG: We have said it may not be advisable or possible to have a national level security force for judges as state level cadre will come into these specialised forces. Our view is before your consideration

SG: We have issued guidelines and guidelines are placed on record. instead of creating a specialised or dedicated police force there is need to ensure fuller implementation of guidelines by MHA for states and UTs. railway protection force often depends on local police force etc

SG: Security problems which Himachal face may be different than Jharkhand. Jharkhand has a different problem, and Chattisgarh has naxal issues. thus the force has to be state specific AND NOT CENTRE SPECIFIC #supremecourt

Justice Kant: Guidelines are fine and that its okay criminal habits are different etc. question is whether these guidelines are followed or not for protection of judges, courts etc. burden of implementing the guidelines is on SC now. You are central govt. You can call DGPs

Justice Kant: you are the best person to get this done. States are now saying they don't have funds for cctvs etc. these issues you have to resolve between you and states. we don't want to call these excuses

SG: These "extra" problems like funds etc can be dealt with

CJI: state of AP, Telangana, Jharkhand, Mizoram, manipur etc have not filed a reply.

Manipur's counsel: we have filed it yersterday

CJI: What about Chhatisgarh?

Justice Kant: all the states who have filed replies have tried to paint rosy pictures. CCTV camera not there etc.. cctv will do what.. they cannot prevent the crime or terrorism or threatening to the judiciary. it can only record the crime.

CJI: What about Goa, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, others?

Goa seeks more time to file counter reply

CJI:One week time given to file counter affidavits. Bar council of India also permitted to file affidavit within a week, Chief secretaries to remain present in case affidavits not submitted

CJI: Cost of one lakh to be imposed on states who fail to file a counter affidavit within a week
#supremecourt #judgessafety #suomotu