STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: To ensure fool proof security cover to the judges after their retirement, a Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul
Vasanthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan on Monday directed the State to provide minimum 1-4 security guards/ personnel round the clock (8 hours duty) at the
residence of each former Chief Justice/Judge of this High Court along with one Personal Security Officer.
These directions were passed by the Division Bench after taking serious note of the fact that despite giving numerous opportunities the State has failed to
show the category in which a sitting Judge of this High Court is placed immediately upon demitting the office. The Division Bench, before passing these
directions also heard, Senior Advocates Sunil Sethi, B. S Slathia, Advocates Veenu Gupta, Meenakshi Salathia, Abhinav Sharma and Ajay Sharma for the PIL
whereas Advocate General DC Raina assisted by Senior AAG Seema Shekhar and AAG W.S Nargal appeared for the State.
The Division Bench also noted that in case of additional requirement the same shall be decided as per the existing threat perception. So far as security cover
to the retired District and Sessions Judges is concerned, the same shall be extended to one year on retirement and thereafter as per the report of Security
Review Coordination Committee. In addition, State-respondents were also directed to provide 1-3 security personnel round the clock at the residence of each
former Advocate General of the State.
However, one PSO shall be provided on demand and security can be enhanced as per threat perception as viewed by the Security Review Coordination Committee.
Court further clarified that this order be implemented within a period of one week from today.
The Division Bench further observed that “We have gone through the said compliance report, wherein it is stated that there is no policy for providing life time
security cover to a retired Judge of this High Court after demitting office or minimum prescribed security by virtue of his/her being a retired Judge of this
Court in absence of any specific threat. It is stated that the policy for provision of security cover is in accordance with the guidelines of Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India. However, it is stated, that security cover to the retired Judges of this High Court is on the basis of threat perception. Whereas
as per the decision of Security Review Coordination Committee, all the sitting Judges of High Court are categorized as “Z” Category Protectees. Further, the
Presiding Officers of TADA/POTA Courts have also been categorized as “Z” Category Protectees by the Security Review Coordination Committee.”
Division Bench further observed, “It is brought to our notice that so far as the retired Judge of this Court, namely, G. D Sharma, is concerned, the Security
Review Coordination Committee has categorized him as “Y” in J and K provisionally by order dated 29th February, 2016. According to Advocate Ajay Sharma, the
State has not implemented the order having been passed by the Security Review Coordination Committee on 29th February and directed that the said security be
provided to the former Judge forthwith”.
