Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Security In Court Premises Have To Drastically Improve

Posted in: Judiciary
Sun, Sep 26, 21, 16:59, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4548
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.

To start with, it is definitely most shocking and one feels most aghast if not terrified to see that the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice. This cannot be taken just lying down and what is most shocking is that such horrifying incidents are happening now on regular basis not just in Bihar or UP but now also right in our national capital that is Delhi itself and Rohini court premises have once again grabbed the limelight for all the wrong reasons! Earlier also as we know Rohini court premises have seen several such incidents happening as was even disclosed in several news channels which is a matter of utmost shame for all of us!

Should it not then be asked most relevantly and pertinently: Why is the security always allowed to be compromised in the court premises time and again? Why no steps are taken to improve drastically the security apparatus of the court premises especially of the District Courts where we repeatedly keep on witnessing such incidents in different parts of the country? What larger message is it sending among criminals?

It also has to be certainly asked without fail: Why should all such men in uniform not be taken to task who allow this worst compromise with security? Why no lesson is learnt repeatedly from past several such incidents which keeps happening time and again right inside court premises as we have seen now also? Why is the security of District Court premises taken so lightly time and again by the police administration?

To be sure, it must also be said that security measures of the District Courts must definitely be brought at complete par with those we see at the High Courts where it is not so easy for any one to enter most easily unlike what we see in the District Court premises where it is very easy for anyone to enter without being checked by anyone! There must be three-level security placement, fitting of CCTV cameras, metal detectors etc and also there must be fixed entry and exit points and even advocates must be checked and so also their vehicles before they enter inside so that security is not compromised in the process, fitting of functional CCTV cameras must be made and so there must be metal detectors etc also right at the entry itself! There must be entry pass system for visitors in Court also and deployment of a highly trained workforce in Courts must also be done at the earliest among other things!

As per the initial reports that are pouring in we learn that two individuals were shot dead in a crossfire between the criminals and the police and a young woman lawyer has also been injured by sustaining a bullet in her leg in the melee that followed! It must be underscored here that lack of safety norms in court premises certainly merits prompt implementation of the Advocates Protection Act also! What if the young woman lawyer had sustained more injuries and died?

To put it mildly: Why should the security cover of court premises not beefed up and drastically improved so that a complete mockery is not made of our whole judicial system by the criminals by striking right in the court premises itself as we saw here in the Rohini court premises! It is being widely speculated that the notorious Tillu gang could be behind the gruesome incident and the prime target of the criminals – Jitender Gogi who was himself also a gang leader sustained three bullet wounds and did not survive. All this happened right inside court premises in full view of the Judge also!

Needless to say, the firing took place in Rohini Court outside Court No. 206. Two assailants were also killed by the police personnel present at the scene of crime even though one or two it is reported in media have escaped also. It is estimated that around 35-40 rounds were fired in the court premises.

As per the eye witnesses, the two assailants later identified as Rahul and Mareesh who were found to be part of Tillu and Navin Bali gang who had come dressed in the uniform of lawyers armed fully fired upon Gogi in the court suddenly and the police was caught unprepared! Why is police always caught napping? Why police allows anyone whether it is lawyer or anyone to enter inside court premises with weapons?

Let me be most direct in asking it upfront: Should not the erring police officials be strictly taken to task for it? Why should they be allowed to go away scot free? Why is the security of court premises repeatedly compromised?

It must also be asked: Why such most terribly horrifying incidents repeatedly allowed to be perpetrated right inside court premises? Why no lessons are repeatedly learnt from such most condemnable incidents? Why is security of court premises especially of district courts not improved drastically where we see maximum cases being heard more than that of even High Courts?

It is high time and now even lawyers under no circumstances should be ever allowed to go inside the court premises armed with weapons! There can be no gainsaying that the police should not allow even lawyers themselves also under any circumstances to go inside court premises armed with deadly weapons! I have said this hundred times in the past also and again now I am underscoring the same thing that security of court premises should not be allowed to be compromised under any circumstances!

But alas! It seems no one seems to care a damn inspite of repeated such most unfortunate incidents happening right inside court premises violating the supreme sacred sanctity of the courts with impunity! The net result is we again and again get to hear of such horrifying incidents as we saw now in the Rohini court premises! This is what truly I find most despicable, unfortunate and uncalled for which under no circumstances can ever be justified!

Of course, the security in court premises have to drastically improve and this must be done straightaway without wasting any more time from now itself! Why should lawyers be allowed to go inside court premises without being checked? Why should lawyers be allowed to carry weapons with them?

As most of us know very well, we all witnessed for ourselves how in 2019, the first ever newly elected very young aged just 37 yet very experienced and learned women lawyer Darvesh Yadav who had on June 9, 2019 been elected as the first woman chairperson of Bar Council of UP thus breaking a new glass ceiling for women was on June 12, 2019 just three days later shot dead most ruthlessly right inside the Agra District Court by another lawyer named Manish Sharma thus cutting short her promising and bright career as also her life itself in the most horrifying manner which under no circumstances can ever be justified by anyone! Are advocates above law? Why can't advocates also just like others also be not barred from carrying weapons inside court premises under any circumstances and if anyone is found to be violating this then most strictest action should be taken against him/her in accordance with the law?

What a spectacle was created that UP Bar Council which is the biggest Bar Council in the world with maximum members in the world as claimed in the website of the UP Bar Council itself that none other than the Chairperson of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Yadav was shot dead by pouring bullets on her right inside court premises thus cutting short her most bright and promising life and career for no fault of hers! Why is anyone whether it is advocate or anyone else ever allowed to carry weapon right inside the court premises itself? Why is the security of the court premises allowed to be held to ransom by the police? Should they still not be held accountable?

More importantly, it thus merits no reiteration that it is high time and now a strict law must be enacted whereby no advocate or anyone else under any circumstances should ever be allowed to carry weapons or bullets inside the court premises under any circumstances as this directly compromises with the security of the court premises which can never be permitted to happen under any circumstances! If this is done most strictly and even advocates should be allowed to go inside only after strict checking then such dastardly incidents can certainly be avoided easily which is the crying need of the hour also! Why should advocates be allowed to go inside court armed with weapons?

But what a crowning and unbeatable irony that our police as also our judiciary learns nothing from the past most unfortunate incidents and repeatedly we hear such incidents where advocates carry weapons right inside court premises which has now become a serious menace and what we then witness is there to see as we saw just now right inside the Rohini court premises making a complete mockery of our courts! There must be a complete strict ban on all persons whether they are advocates or anyone else to ever carry weapons with them right inside court premises! Only then can the security of our court premises be drastically improved and those working in courts and those litigants who come to court seeking justice are rest assured that they are safe which is so indispensable also for our judicial system to function normally and fearlessly under all circumstances!

It is a no-brainer also which must be mentioned here that the National Commission for Women Chairperson – Rekha Sharma who then visited the Agra court premises after the gruesome murder of Chairperson of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Yadav right inside court premises expressed her most strong displeasure over the armed weapon been brought right inside the court premises! She then also very rightly pointed out that:
Why should lawyers or anyone else be allowed to bring weapon inside court premises. We will write to Bar Council of India and UP Bar Council to ensure that no weapon is allowed in court premises. It's extremely disappointing that an advocate was shot inside court by her own colleagues. I'll submit my finding report to Union Home Minister." More than two years later we still see such horrifying incidents being perpetrated time and again with impunity by none other than the criminals themselves by just simply wearing advocates uniform and then fearlessly entering inside easily without being checked by anyone and thus perpetrating the gruesome crime most easily with full brutality!

To say the least: Why can't one and all be banned from carrying weapons right inside court premises? Why is the security of court premises repeatedly allowed to be compromised by the police? Is someone directing the police to compromise with the security? Who are they? Why should they not be held accountable whenever such gruesome incident is perpetrated right inside court premises as we saw most recently in the Rohini court premises?

All said and done, it has to be said at the risk of repetition that the security of court premises have to drastically improve now and there can be no compromise on it any longer as it directly affects the very credibility of our judiciary itself which stands at the highest pedestal! This most burning issue cannot keep on hanging fire indefinitely! It has to be definitely addressed right now with utmost urgency!

No doubt, it brooks no more delay anymore now! Lip service alone won't suffice any longer! It must certainly translate into ground action starting from today itself!

Only and only then can we hope that such most dastardly, despicable and disastrous incidents are never allowed to happen right inside the court premises which is a direct blow to the most clean, impeccable and unpolluted image of our judiciary itself! Even lawyers themselves too are not above the law and they too just like others under no circumstances should be allowed to carry weapons right inside the court premises as it directly poses a most serious threat to the very security of the court premises which stands above everything else and can never be allowed to be compromised by anyone including lawyers under any circumstances whatsoever!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top