The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi high court that providing security cover to judicial officers should continue to be based on individual threat perception, subject to periodic review by competent authorities, and cautioned that any blanket extension of security could have significant policy implications and affect broader law and order responsibilities.
In an affidavit filed on Monday, Delhi Police said that during a May 4 meeting of the protection review group (PRG), coordinated by the special commissioner of police and attended by the high court’s registrar general, it was decided that any communication from the high court seeking security for a judicial officer would lead to immediate interim protection without delay.
The affidavit stated that the interim arrangements would subsequently be subjected to a detailed threat assessment, after which appropriate orders would be passed. It added that 44 sitting high court judges currently receive security cover on a positional basis, while 12 judicial officers are protected based on individual threat assessments.
“That in view of the foregoing facts, the established guidelines contained in the Yellow Book, the consistent practice adopted across states, and the issues relating to manpower and resources, it is most respectfully submitted that personal security to judicial officers ought to continue to be provided on the basis of individual threat perception, subject to periodic review by competent authorities,” the affidavit stated. “Any generalised extension thereof may have significant policy implications and could inadvertently affect the effective discharge of wider law and order responsibilities.”
Referring to the May 4 meeting, the affidavit said it was “categorically agreed upon” that any request from the Delhi high court for security to a judicial officer would be acted upon immediately, pending a detailed assessment.
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi, which represents trial court judges and has sought personal security officers (PSOs) and security at the residences of judicial officers. The petition was argued by advocate Vaibhav Mishra.
The matter came up before a bench of justice Manoj Jain on Tuesday but was adjourned to July 7 after the court directed Delhi Police to place on record the minutes of an April 27 meeting held in compliance with an earlier order passed on April 21.
Delhi Police also told the court that a dedicated court security unit has been set up for the protection of the high court and district court complexes. It said each criminal courtroom across district courts has a uniformed naib court armed with a small weapon to maintain decorum and law and order. “The presence of such trained personnel within courtrooms, coupled with the layered security arrangements across court premises, ensures that adequate and effective security is maintained at all times,” the affidavit stated.
In its 11-page affidavit, Delhi Police further said there is no uniform practice across states of granting blanket positional security to all judicial officers and that threat assessment remains the governing principle nationwide.
Citing responses from states including Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the affidavit said most states provide security to judicial officers based on threat perception, with only limited categories receiving baseline security on an ex officio basis.
“In states such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra, security is granted strictly upon assessment of threat perception by competent authorities, particularly in cases involving sensitive or serious offences,” the affidavit stated. It added that in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, security is based on threat inputs, case sensitivity and recommendations of security agencies, though district and sessions judges receive positional security.
“Even in states where certain categories of judicial officers are provided minimal ex officio security, such as Bihar and Haryana, any enhanced protection is subject to evaluation of threat perception and approval by competent committees,” the affidavit stated, adding that there is no uniform practice of extending blanket security to all judicial officers.
