E-Paper
HC slams Centre, Delhi Police for ‘apathy’ on PSOs for judicial officers
The Delhi High Court criticized the Centre and Delhi Police for their inadequate security measures for judicial officers, emphasizing the need for protection.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday expressed strong displeasure over the Centre and Delhi Police’s stance that personal security officers (PSOs) should be provided to judicial officers only on a case-by-case basis, depending on threat assessment, and that extending such protection could trigger similar demands from other government servants.
The bench of justice Manoj Jain observed that this approach risked undermining judicial independence and asked why there was so much “apathy” towards the question of providing security.
“You want someone to be first threatened, assaulted, and only then you will come to the rescue? You don’t want to create an atmosphere where officers can roam freely? It’s high time. If we can provide them with court staff, prosecutors, why can we not grant them with PSOs? If they (neighbouring states) can make arrangements for judicial officers, what stops Delhi, where the crime is high? Why such apathy?” the bench said to Delhi Police’s lawyer Sanjay Lau.
It added, “You are compromising with the independence of the judiciary. If their demand is also well-founded, you have to provide them also. But how can you say that merely because in future there would be demands from other government servants also, we should not provide round-the-clock security to the judicial officer. That is not acceptable.”
The court made these observations in a petition filed by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi, which represents trial court judges, seeking PSOs for judicial officers and security at their residences. The petition was argued by advocate Vaibhav Mishra.
On Tuesday, the court made the observations after perusing an affidavit filed by the Centre, which said there is no provision for blanket security to all judicial officers. It stated that providing 24×7 PSOs to every officer would require thousands of personnel, making it impractical, and recommended case-by-case security based on threat perception. The affidavit added that while High Court and Supreme Court judges receive protection, extending it to district judges could trigger similar demands from other judicial forums and public prosecutors.
During the hearing, Delhi Police’s counsel submitted that, although a meeting was held on April 13 pursuant to the high court’s March 24 order, key aspects, including security provisions for judicial officers in other states, were not considered. He further submitted that even the principal secretary, department of law, justice and legislative affairs, was not invited to the meeting and thus urged the court to grant it time to convene another meeting.
Considering Lau’s contention, the court permitted the authorities to hold another meeting and asked it to come up with good suggestions. It did not take Centre’s current affidavit on record and asked it to file a better one. “Come up with some good suggestions. We are not taking this on record (affidavit),” the bench said.
The matter will be heard next on May 12.
