<p>The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it was not advisable to have a national level security force for judges and court complexes, as local police would be in a better position to deal with their protection in view of State-specific threats. </p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by chief justice N V Ramana that the central government has issued guidelines, in 2007, regarding the protection of judges and court complexes. </p>.<p>He said instead of creating a specialised police force there is a need to ensure fuller implementation of guidelines by the Ministry of Home Affairs for States and Union territories. </p>.<p>He further said that security problems that Himachal Pradesh faced may be different than that of Jharkhand, therefore the force has to be state-specific, not Centre-specific. </p>.<p>He contended that it may not be advisable to have a national level security force for judges. </p>.<p>The response from Mehta came as, the court asked him whether it is possible to have a specialised national force for judges’ security on the lines of RPF, CSIF etc.</p>.<p>He said the security of courts is better left to States, as it requires day to day coordination with the local police. </p>.<p>The court also sought to know whether the guidelines issued by the MHA are followed or not for the protection of judges, courts etc. </p>.<p>“You are the central government. You can call DGPs... you are the best person to get this done. States are saying they don't have funds for CCTVs etc... these issues you have to resolve between you and States," the bench told Mehta.</p>.<p>The bench also noted the court had on previous hearing granted the last opportunity to States, for filing affidavits in connection with the protection of judges, yet many have not responded. </p>.<p>The court granted 10 days to States to file a response, saying it would impose Rs 1 lakh cost on their failure to do so.</p>.<p>The court was hearing a Suo Motu matter registered after the alleged mowing dow of Dhanbad Additional District Judge, Uttam Anand.</p>
<p>The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it was not advisable to have a national level security force for judges and court complexes, as local police would be in a better position to deal with their protection in view of State-specific threats. </p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by chief justice N V Ramana that the central government has issued guidelines, in 2007, regarding the protection of judges and court complexes. </p>.<p>He said instead of creating a specialised police force there is a need to ensure fuller implementation of guidelines by the Ministry of Home Affairs for States and Union territories. </p>.<p>He further said that security problems that Himachal Pradesh faced may be different than that of Jharkhand, therefore the force has to be state-specific, not Centre-specific. </p>.<p>He contended that it may not be advisable to have a national level security force for judges. </p>.<p>The response from Mehta came as, the court asked him whether it is possible to have a specialised national force for judges’ security on the lines of RPF, CSIF etc.</p>.<p>He said the security of courts is better left to States, as it requires day to day coordination with the local police. </p>.<p>The court also sought to know whether the guidelines issued by the MHA are followed or not for the protection of judges, courts etc. </p>.<p>“You are the central government. You can call DGPs... you are the best person to get this done. States are saying they don't have funds for CCTVs etc... these issues you have to resolve between you and States," the bench told Mehta.</p>.<p>The bench also noted the court had on previous hearing granted the last opportunity to States, for filing affidavits in connection with the protection of judges, yet many have not responded. </p>.<p>The court granted 10 days to States to file a response, saying it would impose Rs 1 lakh cost on their failure to do so.</p>.<p>The court was hearing a Suo Motu matter registered after the alleged mowing dow of Dhanbad Additional District Judge, Uttam Anand.</p>
