The Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, whose personal security officer (PSO)'s weapon was snatched last month by a person to shoot himself dead at Amritsar's Golden Temple, has requested that the policeman be retained in his security detail.
The Court had taken a suo motu cognizance of the incident and later directed replacing the judge's security with personnel from UT Chandigarh or Haryana to assuage the feeling of insecurity perceived by him.
However, the Court on October 1 was informed by Chandigarh Administration that while security of the judge has been beefed up, "the PSO of the learned Judge belonging to State of Punjab has been retained on request made by the learned Judge."
An escort vehicle with a driver and 1-2 armed personnel from Chandigarh Police have been deployed to provide security to the judge, the Union Territory further told the Court.
Meanwhile, Punjab government had moved the Court seeking expunging the observations against the police in the order removing the personnel of the Punjab Police from the security detail of the judge.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal in the order passed on October 1 said the Court had no intention to cast any aspersions on the reputation or integrity of police personnel of Punjab.
However, it clarified that it may have gone "a little overboard" in its criticism against Punjab Police in the order taking suo motu cognizance of the incident on September 24.
"This Court may have gone a little overboard by concluding at this early stage that there is definitely lapse of security on the part of Punjab Police (vide order dated 24.09.2024), but this Court had no intention to cast any aspersions on reputation or integrity of police personnel of the State of Punjab," the Bench said.
The Court also said the direction to substitute the police personnel, deployed for security of the judge, from Punjab Police to a neutral police force was passed "wholly and solely keeping in mind the threat perception perceived by the learned Judge and also this Court."
It also explained that it had felt that if the PSO deputed with the judge cannot take care of his fire-arm, then grave doubts arise regarding the alertness and vigilance exercised by him.
However, the Court proceeded to expunge the remark calling it a security lapse.
"Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to expunge the observations : “There is definitely lapse of security” from its order dated 24.09.2024," ordered the Court.
Meanwhile, with regard to the investigation in the cases including the Amritsar incident, the Court directed IPS Officer Manisha Chaudhary, who is an officer posted in Haryana, to conduct and conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
"She is directed to file a weekly compliance report in the Registry of this Court, reflecting the stage and progress in investigation," ordered the Court.
It further directed the Chandigarh Administration and Haryana to submit weekly threat perception report with regard to the judge's security so that it can decide the future course of action in the present case.
The matter will be heard next on October 15.
Advocate General Gurminder Singh, Additional Advocate Generals JS Gill, Anurag Chopra and Saurav Khurana represented the State of Punjab.
Senior Standing Counsel Amit Jhanji with Additional Standing Counsel JS Chandail and advocate Eliza Gupta appeared for the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Additional Solicitor General SP Jain and Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain represented the Union of India.
Additional Advocate General Pawan Girdhar represented the State of Haryana.
Senior Advocates RS Cheema and Vinod Ghai with advocates AS Cheema, Satish Sharma, Arnav Ghai and Kashish Sahini appeared for the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association. Its Acting President Jasdev Singh was also present.
[Read Order]