The 'accidental' death of ADJ Uttam Anand, who was handling critical cases, underlines the vulnerability of the judicial officers to grave risks and demands an immediate overhaul of the inadequate security cover for the legal fraternity, writes DHAVAL HEMESH SHETH
—–
In a democracy, the judiciary's primary responsibility is to ensure equal social, economic and political justice for every citizen and maintain the rule of law. With this aim in mind, the founding fathers of our Constitution accorded the highest importance to justice in the Preamble.
Independence of the judiciary from the executive and the legislative branches is a prerequisite for ensuring proper and timely delivery of justice.
Interference in the judiciary's smooth functioning could also be in the form of threats and violence against Judges hearing critical or sensitive cases. Any attack on the legal fraternity is an attack on the independence of the judiciary.
Also read: Is the Indian Judiciary Independent Anymore?
It is the government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of judicial officers especially those handling politically sensitive or criminal cases.
In the absence of adequate protection, Judges will hesitate to give stringent punishment and strong verdicts, which will ultimately erode public faith and trust in the judiciary.
The brutal death of Dhanbad additional district and sessions Judge Uttam Anand on July 28 underlines the lack of proper security cover for judicial officers. The CCTV footage of an autorickshaw suddenly swerving to its left on an empty road and knocking Judge Anand down while on his morning jog triggered nationwide outrage.
The Jharkhand High Court (HC) had ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case. However, dissatisfied with the SIT's investigation, the bench accepted the state government's recommendation to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which registered an FIR under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
There is no uniform framework for providing safety and security to Judges. For example, Punjab provides no security to a lower court Judge, who has to apply for protection in certain circumstances. A trial court Judge does not have proper security and is most susceptible to attacks.
The lack of adequate security leaves judicial officers exposed to criminal threats and attacks. Such incidents have been occurring throughout the country.
A day after the Dhanbad incident, Fatehpur (UP) District Court ADJ Mohdammad Ahmed Khan's car was hit by another vehicle while he was returning from Allahabad on July 29. Judge Khan complained to the police alleging it was an attempt to murder him.
During his posting in Bareilly in December 2020, Judge Khan had rejected the bail application of an accused who had threatened to eliminate him and his family, according to the complaint.
In November 2020, the ADJ of Hilsa court, Nalanda (Bihar), Jai Kishore Dubey was attacked by some bikers and seriously wounded.
In April 2018, the additional chief judicial magistrate of Pupri (Bihar), Prashant Kumar Jha, was assaulted by some train passengers who tried to occupy his berth on the Patna-Gaya section.
Besides Judges, advocates involved in high-profile cases have been targeted as well. In February, an advocate couple, Gattu Vaman Rao and PV Nagamani, were murdered in Telangana's Peddapalli district in broad daylight. They were involved in cases against local politicians and PILs filed by them.
The couple, which was also arguing a case of custodial death, had sought protection from the Telangana High Court due to police harassment.
In July, advocate Satyadev Joshi, allegedly involved in a property dispute, was seriously injured in an attack by sword-wielding men in Borivali (Mumbai).
Judge Anand was hearing the murder case of one Ranjay Singh, a close aide of former Jharia MLA and Bharatiya Janata Party member Sanjeev Singh, an undertrial in the 2017 murder of his cousin and Dhanbad deputy mayor Neeraj Singh.
The Judge had also denied bail to UP-based shooters Ravi Thakur and Aman Singh, members of a gang headed by sharpshooter Abhinav Singh, who was involved in Neeraj Singh's murder.
Since Judge Anand was hearing important criminal cases, adequate security should have been provided to him. Refusing to hear the matter, the Supreme Court, addressing the safety and security of judicial officers, took suo moto cognisance of the incident.
The lack of proper security for judicial officers has been criticised by high courts, judicial associations and advocates.
In October 2018, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh to devise a security plan for judicial officers after the wife and son of a Gurgaon ADJ were shot dead by his PSO.
The Bihar Judicial Association also criticised the lack of security for judicial officers in the state after the attack on Judge Jha. The Association demanded adequate security for all judicial officers of the state irrespective of their rank.
Following the death of Judge Anand, several judicial magistrates, advocates and former Judges expressed concern over the increasing assaults on the legal fraternity and the inadequate security cover.
There is an urgent need for systematic reforms, especially at the trial court level. An independent subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the legal system. Every Judge handles high-profile cases and bail appeals in criminal cases. Sometimes, advocates are also involved in sensitive political cases. Therefore, the government should ensure proper security for judicial officers.
In America, US Marshals are responsible for the protection of federal Judges and prosecutors and other judicial officers. The government can provide Central Industrial Security Force cover to Judges. The death of Judge Anand and assaults on other Judges and advocates are a threat to judicial independence and highlight the need for an immediate overhaul of the security cover provided to the legal fraternity.
(Dhaval Hemesh Sheth is a second-year student of BA LLB (Hons.), National Law University, Delhi.)