news details |
|
|
| Do not withdraw security of judicial officers: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 21: In a Public Interest Litigation filed by two practicing Advocates namely Prem Sadhotra and Rajneesh Raina challenging the order on personal security of judicial officers has been withdrawn in Jammu, A Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal after hearing Adv Rohit Kapoor appearing for the PIL, issued notice to Chief Secretary, DGP, IGP and SSP Jammu which were accepted by Sr. AAG SS Nanda.
Division Bench also directed State to file a detailed status report in the context of issues raised in the petition be filed by the respondents on or before the next date of hearing. The report shall also indicate the action, if any, taken in compliance of the Full Court Resolution of November, 2008 mentioned in PIL whereby High Court of Jammu and Kashmir well conscious of lack of security measures of the judicial officers, in Nov 2008 in its full court meeting of Ten High Court Judges headed by the then Chief Justice recommended to the Government for issuance of Logos on vehicles carrying the description of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate and Judge.
However, nothing has been done by the State in this context. Instead of adding up to their security, respondents in terms of order dated 1.12.2014 have withdrawn even the personal security of the judicial officers.
Division Bench also directed in the meantime, at least one police personnel attached as PSO with the Judicial Officers as on date shall not be withdrawn till next date of hearing.
In the PIL it has been submitted that all the judicial officers including the 1st class Magistrates perform the nature of duty that has a potential of exposing to real threats and intimidation. Such incidents are numerous. Their duties include remand under offences like 302, 376 of Ranbir Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act, NDPS etc. The District Judges also perform the nature of duties even on civil side which exposes them to threats and intimidation. The situation of law and order in the State is unsatisfactory and thus making the judicial officers more vulnerable.
In the PIL it has been submitted that there is complete non application of mind by the functionaries of State Government and police authorities while extending scope of the order dated 1.12.2014 to the judicial officers.
It has been also submitted that Fear of threats and intimidation of the judicial officers is a threat to independence of Judiciary. A judicial officer requires a fearless and independent mind to do justice and any apprehension in his/her mind about his/her safety would certainly hamper his/her capabilities to judge fearlessly and impartially. The famous French philosopher Montesquieu had first of all given the idea of the independence of judiciary.
He believed in the theory of separation of powers of the three Branches of the government- Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Inspired by his theory the father of the American Constitution established an independent judiciary in their country.
The American people have a great confidence in the independence of judiciary. They feel that their rights and liberties will be endangered if the judiciary is weakened in anyway. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
