Security Breach: HC Directs Not To Deploy Punjab Police For Security Of Judge Known For Exposing "Large-Scale Lapses Of Punjab Police"

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed not to deploy Punjab Police for security of a sitting HC judge who exposed "large-scale lapses on the part of investigating agencies" of Punjab and whose security was compromised in a recent incident.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal has ordered deployment of officers of a "neutral" police force and not Punjab Police, for securing the movement of the Judge. It observed,

"It is well known that large-scale lapses on the part of investigating agencies in the State of Punjab were exposed by various judicial orders passed by the learned Judge since last 12/24 months. This Court, thus, deems it appropriate that the security personnel dealing with security of the learned Judge ought not to be members of Punjab police force, but either of UT Administration or of State of Haryana. Deployment of a neutral police force but not of State of Punjab for securing the movement of the learned Judge shall certainly assuage the feeling of insecurity perceived by the learned Judge."

The development comes in light of a September 22 incident where a man pulled out the gun of Judge's Personal Security Officer (PSO) at Golden Temple and ran towards entrance of the Golden Temple "with possible intent to harm the Judge". His advancement was thwarted by the PSO and in the scuffle that followed, the miscreant shot himself in the head.

The bench thus directed, "the personnel manning security of the learned Judge within and outside Chandigarh shall immediately be changed from Punjab Police to police personnel belonging to either UT Administration or the State of Haryana..."

In pursuance of a previous order, the Punjab Government had submitted a status report with regard to the nature and stage of investigation being conducted into the incident.

UT administration, Chandigarh also apprised the Court on enhancement of security of the Judge.

"From the stand taken by the State of Punjab with regard to progress in investigation, this Court finds that the same though lies within the exclusive domain of the State, but the threat perception has to be assessed as perceived by the learned Judge," the Court observed.

On investigation, the Court sought suggestion from UT Administration and Haryana Government for appropriate investigating officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police of a district to conduct investigation in the incident.

The Court also impleaded Union of India through Secretary, Home Affairs and State of Haryana through its Home Secretary as parties to the petition.

ASG Satya Pal Jain assured the Court that all possible assistance within "four corners of law" will be provided.

The matter is listed for October 01, for further consideration.

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. J.S. Gill, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,

Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with Mr. J.S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel, for Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing), with Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate,

Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Singh Rai, Advocate, for Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh. Mr. Jasdev Singh, Acting President, High Court Bar Association.