news details |
|
|
| HC directs state to file response, compliance report within 10 days | | PIL regarding withdrawal of security of judicial officers | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 25: In a PIL filed by Prem Sadhotra and Rajneesh Raina, both lawyers, challenging the December 1, 2014 order as regards the withdrawal of personal security cover of judicial officers in Jammu, a high court division bench today directed respondents to file response and compliance report within 10 days in terms of May 21, 2015 order whereby the bench had directed state to file a detailed status report in the context of issues raised in the petition 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 the high court well conscious of lack of security measures of the judicial officers, in November 2008 in its full court meeting of 10 judges headed by then Chief Justice had 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 Instead of adding up to their security, respondents in terms of order dated 1.12.2014 have withdrawn even the personal security of the judicial officers). In the meantime, at least one police personnel attached as PSO with the Judicial Officers as on date shall not be withdrawn till next date of hearing.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 and NDPS. 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.
It has also been submitted that there is a complete non-application of mind by the state functionaries and police authorities while extending scope of the order dated 1.12.2014 to the judicial officers.
It has also been submitted that fear of threats and intimidation of 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
