Jharkhand High Court takes up the issue of security and infrastructure of district courts in the State
Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P. (PIL) No. 4951 of 2023
Facts
The present case arose out of a suo motu exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court of Jharkhand following a serious security breach within the District Court premises at East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. In September 2023, an intoxicated individual carrying a chopper concealed in a bag managed to enter the court premises through Gate No. 1 without any resistance or security check. The assailant freely moved from one courtroom to another and ultimately entered the chamber of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge where a court staff member was on duty.
The assailant attacked the court staff by inflicting a severe blow on his neck, causing serious injuries. The attacker was apprehended on the spot, and the injured staff member was immediately taken to the hospital, where he received prompt medical treatment. The Advocate General informed the Court that the injured person was stable and out of danger. The accused was booked under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with other penal provisions, and investigation was initiated.
Although the State submitted that the incident appeared to be a standalone act without wider conspiratorial implications, the Court noted with concern that similar violent incidents had occurred earlier in several districts of Jharkhand, including Dhanbad and Deoghar. Given the gravity of the incident and its implications for the safety of judicial institutions, the High Court convened a special sitting and initiated proceedings on its own motion in public interest.
Legal Issues
(i) Whether the existing security arrangements in court premises across the State of Jharkhand were inadequate, thereby endangering the lives of judicial officers, court staff, lawyers, and litigants?
(ii) What immediate and long-term measures were required to ensure the safety and security of court complexes?
Legal Reasoning and Holding
The Court emphasized that courts are “temples of justice” and that public confidence in the judicial system is intrinsically linked to the safety and security of court premises. Any breach of security within courts directly undermines the rule of law and the authority of the justice delivery system. The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, wherein the apex court had taken cognizance of repeated incidents of violence in court premises across the country and issued comprehensive directions to strengthen court security.
The High Court reproduced and relied upon the detailed guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which included (i) the preparation of comprehensive security plans by High Courts in consultation with State Governments and police authorities; (ii) the establishment of permanent Court Security Units, structured deployment and training of security personnel; (iii) installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras as an integral component of court infrastructure; (iv) regulation of entry and exit points through frisking, metal detectors, baggage scanners, and biometric systems; and (v) strict regulation of vendors operating within court premises.
The Court observed that although certain steps such as construction of boundary walls, security towers, and installation of CCTV cameras were reportedly underway in Jharkhand pursuant to earlier public interest litigations, the incident at Jamshedpur demonstrated that implementation remained inadequate and uneven. The absence of effective access control and surveillance mechanisms was viewed as a systemic failure rather than an isolated lapse.
The Court also underscored its constitutional duty to enforce compliance with Supreme Court directions, noting that lack of formal communication of the Supreme Court order could not be used as a justification for inaction. Given the immediacy of the threat, the Court found it necessary to issue operative directions without delay and to place institutional responsibility on senior administrative and police officials.
The High Court did not finally adjudicate the matter but issued a series of interim and administrative directions in public interest. It directed the Registrar General of the High Court to convene a high-level meeting with nominated senior judges, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police, and other relevant officials to immediately formulate and operationalize a comprehensive court security plan in line with Supreme Court guidelines. The Court also directed that the matter be listed along with connected public interest litigations concerning court infrastructure and security, and required senior district officials to remain present to apprise the Court of the updated status. The proceedings thus reinforced the proactive role of the judiciary in safeguarding the institutional integrity and physical security of courts
.