news details |
|
|
| HC finds holes in criteria of providing security | | PIL regarding security of courts | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 6: In a PIL, seeking direction on security of courts, a High Court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today issued various directions.
The bench observed that as regards the state policy and criteria to make the assessment of threat, a comprehensive report stands filed by SSP Security, Jammu, which says that security cover is provided to an individual on the basis of threat perception report as per the Union Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines as laid down in a classified document known as Yellow Book which say that threat perception report is sought from sister intelligence agencies and the matter is placed before Security Review Coordination Committee constituted by the government in terms of order No Home-663(ISA) of July 31, 2012 read with government Order No 283-Home(ISA) of July 23, 2015 which meets periodically to decide the security categorization of individuals facing threat and provide them security cover as per their category entitlement.
As per Yellow Book, individuals are classified on the basis of threat perception into the categories of Z+, Z, Y and X.
"Yellow book" was produced before us in a sealed cover and the same was returned being a classified document. From its perusal, it emerges that the security cover provided to all judges of this court is liable to be withdrawn or reduced depending upon the threat perception. All judges of this court and presiding officers of TADA/POTA courts are placed in Z category. Other judicial officers are provided security cover by the district police within their territorial jurisdiction as per local threat. The fresh compliance report, though comprehensive and elaborate, fails to identify the category in which a sitting judge is placed immediately upon demitting of office. Unless such category is specified, enhancement or reduction of security cover based upon threat perception is rendered unworkable. The policy guideline appears to be vague on this aspect. Any judge of this court, on laying of robes, is entitled to be placed in a category for enjoying the security cover and the minimum in this regard is required to be specifically provided. Faced with this situation, the advocate general prays for some time being granted to file an affidavit in this regard. Four weeks' time is granted for the purpose," the bench said.
Regarding security in the district courts, the report reads that the main building of the complex is having only one main entry point at the atrium whereas another entry near the parking area is exclusively for physically disabled persons. The other court building is having two entry points. Nafri of security wing is deployed at the access points and security gadgets like Door Frame Metal Detectors (DFMDs) and Hand-Held Metal Detectors (HHMDs) are positioned there for frisking and checking of the visitors.
The bench observed that suggestion put forth by petitioners regarding vacation of atrium had merit. It would not only streamline the inflow of visitors at the main entry gate of the district court building but also take care of stampede which may be witnessed in case of an emergency exit from the building, the bench said.
The bench said time schedule was required to be fixed by the trial courts for hearing the cases of undertrials.
The court observed that the compliance report "lays bare that strategic locations for installation of CCTV cameras in the court premises at Jammu and Srinagar have been identified and proposal for allotment of funds for procurement of 50 CCTV cameras, 25 for each location, has been submitted to the state government".
The court said principal district judge shall take up the matter with DGP prisons and the concerned chief engineer for effecting necessary modification in the hall serving as judicial lockup and ensure providing of necessary civic facilities therein. Compliance in this regard shall be reported by him.
The bench said that as per report of PDJ, necessary directions had been given to SSP, Jammu, to remove all the live explosive material from Malkhana and get it diffused/disposed of by experts in the presence of a magistrate. Compliance report in this regard is required to be filed by PDJ.
The suggestion regarding shifting of Malkhana would depend upon construction of a New Malkhana for which PDJ shall be asked to come up with a proposal within the time frame of four weeks.
The bench observed that the issue regarding security cards is required to be taken up with Information Technology Department which has the expertise in fabrication of Biometric Cards.
Regarding security in High Court complex, the bench observed that construction of parking place behind the advocate general's Office was in progress. Proper entry and exit roads need to be carved out for use by general public on payment basis. Separate parking slots can be identified by the traffic police for use of judges, advocates and court staff. These include installation of a proper iron gate at the end of boundary wall near judicial academy, deployment of a receptionist at the main gate for identification of the entry-seekers, fixing of sentry posts all along the perimeter wall, provision for a drop gate barrier at the junction leading towards the entry gate of judges and setting up of a command room for monitoring and surveillance of CCTV footage in High Court. Registrar General shall be required to examine these suggestions and come up with his response, the bench directed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
