CISF deployment: Madras High Court competent to handle its security, says Supreme Court Updated - September 01, 2016
The apex court tells the Tamil Nadu government to go to the High Court and advance all arguments against deployment of CISF.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order for deployment of the CISF by replacing State police security at its Chennai premises, which has recently witnessed unruly scenes caused by lawyers paralysing normal work.
It said nobody, including the lawyers, can be allowed to hold to ransom the institution which has to remain “effective” by maintaining its “integrity” and “dignity.”
The apex court made it clear it was not going to examine the issue at the instance of the State government which has filed an appeal against the High Court order of October 30, 2015.
“The Chief Justice (of the High Court) and judges are entitled to say that the police is ineffective. You cannot allow the institution to be held to ransom. We will not allow this to happen,” a bench comprising Justices T.S. Thakur and P.C. Panth said.
“They (judges) felt they are totally insecure with the local police. They have asked CISF to step in. If CISF also fails then other forces may be asked to be called,” it said.
The bench did not agree with the arguments of Tamil Nadu government counsel and senior advocate L. Nageshwar Rao that paying an hefty amount of Rs. 36 crore per year to the Centre for deploying the CISF would be a problem and, further, deputing central force would affect the morale of the State police.
He said there would also be a language issue with the CISF at the High Court campus which is visited daily by 15,000 lawyers.
Brushing aside the arguments, the bench recalled the incident of September 14, 2015 and said, “People don’t allow the institution to work. They (lawyers) squat with their children and female members of the family in the courtroom. What is all this happening?”
The bench told the counsel that the Tamil Nadu government could go to the High Court and advance all arguments about the language problem and the morale of the State police.
“Go back to the High Court and point out the difficulties,” the bench said adding “we don’t want to handle the security issue of the High Court. High Court is competent to handle it itself. If High Court feels that there is inadequate security it can certainly ask for CISF cover.”
Published - November 04, 2015
Why should TN govt foot CISF security bill, asks Madras HC A Subramani / TNN / Mar 20, 2017
Around one and half years after ordering deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to insulate the Madras high court campus from external and internal disturbances, the higher judiciary seems to be having a rethink on the issue.
CHENNAI: Around one and half years after ordering deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to insulate the Madras high court campus from external and internal disturbances, the higher judiciary seems to be having a rethink on the issue.
On Monday, when former president of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) R C Paul Kanagaraj argued for revocation of suspension of nine advocates, the first bench of Acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice RMT Teeka Raman questioned the need for the force, for which the Tamil Nadu government is paying Rs 32 crore per year towards salary component alone.
“I have been in this court for about a year now, and there are no terrorist activities warranting the CISF,” said Justice Ramesh, adding that a court premises was for the general public and it should not be like court martial.
“If the Centre is keen to provide high security to the court, why should the state government pay? Also, if any law and order problem arises, it is for the local police to manage. Everywhere in India, only the respective state police is managing courts,” the bench said.
When assistant solicitor general of India Su Srinivasan pointed out that the Delhi high court was under CISF security, the bench said, “May be, it is required there because Delhi is nearer to Pakistan.”
Paul Kanagaraj said the state paid Rs 66 crore as salary for the CISF last year and added that accommodation and infrastructure were additional expenses. He said there was no need to remove the infrastructure, but it could be occupied by state police personnel. “Legal fraternity will fully cooperate with state police,” Kanagaraj said.
Advocate Elephant G Rajendran, however, said the state government should not adopt a double standard in the matter and added that the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu had written to the Centre saying it was unable to manage lawyers.
After the Justice Ramesh suggested that Rajendran could move the Supreme Court with regard to payment of Rs 66 crore by the Tamil Nadu government for the court security, the latter said he would do so.
Additional advocate general C Manishankar furnished a report and photographs of the under construction frisking points of the CISF on court campus.
The case has now been posted to the first week of June for further proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment