Mind the law and order in courts

The standard string that runs through all of these gruesome incidents is the modus operandi. In all of these incidents, the culprits were seen dressed in lawyer’s attire.

In the mid-1980s, the supporters of notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar seized Columbia’s Palace of Justice and held the judges and civilians hostage. This incident is remembered for how it ‘crippled’ the Columbian legal system and had political implications. Not comparing it to the Indian scenario but drawing an analogy of how notorious criminals in India are trying to ‘cripple’ the justice delivery system by interfering with the justice cycle through severe blows.

Consider, for instance, the recent tragic incident of a gangster named Sanjeev Maheshwari Jeeva, who was shot dead inside a Lucknow court premises. However, this was not the first time that acts of violence and intimidation had occurred inside court premises in India. A woman and a lawyer were injured after shots were fired inside the Saket court complex in Delhi almost a month ago. In another horrific event, a shootout occurred inside Delhi’s Rohini District Court complex. A standard string that runs through all of these gruesome incidents is the modus operandi. In all of these incidents, the culprits were seen dressed in lawyer’s attire. However, the tales are not limited to this modus operandi but extend to grave security breaches inside and outside court premises across the country. If one looks at the archives of such attacks inside or adjacent to the premises of the court, one will come across incidents at varied levels, including the murder of a judge in Jharkhand, leopard attacks inside the Court, acid attacks, and attacks on judges and lawyers, among other things.

There remain profound implications when such incidents take place, including the foremost: hampering of the due course, a sense of fear among the masses, and painting an image of the State and judiciary combined as ineffective in providing sufficient protection to citizens inside court premises, which must logically be one of the most secure places in the country. These incidents also have far-reaching consequences and may deter the judicial officers from performing their duty effectively—nothing less than a travesty of justice. While most of these breaches have been witnessed in the district court complexes, this is the first instance of interaction between the judiciary and the people. Indeed, the judiciary is not to blame for these breaches, as the onus of providing security is on the State. The courts have actively tried to secure boundaries; however, with the limited interest of the State, it remains a futile exercise.

While considering these questions in Pradyuman Bisht vs Union of India, the Apex Court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras inside the district courts. The Delhi High Court, in a Suo-Moto matter, ordered various steps to be taken to increase security in the courts, including digitised ID Cards for lawyers, the use of metal detectors, the production of undertrials using video conferencing, a 24/7 monitor room, and three-tier security for the courts. However, the Supreme Court’s stance in this matter has also raised quintessential points for consideration: adopting a balanced approach to accommodate the open court system and centrally pushing that courts cannot be turned into fortresses; they are public places.

In another PIL filed for having a special force to protect judges and officers of courts from direct threats inside and outside the Court on similar lines, the Union Government opposed the Railway Protection Force. Law and order fall under the state list in Schedule VII of the Constitution and, accordingly, the state governments. The Union government had emphasised that the purview of ‘law and order’ is of the state governments, and even after repeated instances across the country, there seem to be no stringent steps to ensure
the protection of courts and their officers.

Along with the bestowed duty, the states must also realise that a larger part of the judicial process is based on the idea of ‘faith’ that the citizens have towards the judiciary—the faith that they are protected and secure when they reach courts. And with each such incident that occurs, it may loosen up this faith factor and develop fear in the minds of individuals before approaching the courts.

(The writer is an advocate based in New Delhi)