Protest is fundamental right, but can’t extend to hitting judges: Jharkhand High Court

Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar, while hearing the PIL, noted that more than 500 people, armed with lathis and sickles, allegedly gathered outside the court in 2022 and locked the premises, bringing the work to a standstill, police said, adding that they were demanding complete self-rule with no role of courts or governments.

“The right to protest is undoubtedly a fundamental right; however, such right cannot extend to obstructing judicial proceedings, assaulting those entrusted with the administration of justice, or vandalising court premises,” the Augsut 17 order read.

The court observed that an incident of this nature strikes at the “very independence” of the judiciary, which is a basic feature of the Indian constitutional scheme.

Latehar incident, security of judicial officers

The court noted that the incident occurred on October 10, 2022, when a large gathering of members of the Tana Bhagat community forcibly trespassed into the civil court complex at Latehar, vandalised the premises, assaulted police personnel and disrupted judicial proceedings.

The situation escalated to such an extent that the then Principal and District Sessions Judge, Latehar, had to be locked and confined inside a room to safeguard his life and liberty.

Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that there is “no reason to wait for a Latehar-type incident” before taking protection measures.

Taking note of the incident, the high court had expressed concern over the adequacy of security arrangements at civil court premises across the state. It directed the chief secretary and the director general of police to place on record intelligence inputs, action taken reports and an assessment of security arrangements for court premises and judicial officers.

Security of justice delivery system

Recalling the incident of October 2022, the high court stated that the said incident required immediate and urgent intervention by the court and pointed out that the concern before this court was, and continues to be, to ensure that the justice delivery system remains “secure and is not subjected to such disruption in the future”. 

The court also pointed out that it has passed several orders to ensure that no similar situation arises at the district level due to inadequate deployment of security forces and that those responsible for such acts are duly identified and dealt with in accordance with law. 

The court expressed satisfaction with the present security arrangements at the Latehar Court, noting the deployment of armed personnel, the court complex’s physical security infrastructure, a Quick Response Team in close proximity, CCTV coverage and facilities for production of high-risk undertrials through video-conferencing.

The court also examined the latest affidavits regarding the personal security of judicial officers posted at Latehar. These showed that each judicial officer was being provided, at a minimum, one bodyguard and one home guard. “We are, for the present, satisfied with the individual security cover provided to the judicial officers in the Latehar Judgeship,” the court said.

The court held that a comparable level of personal security cover should be ensured for judicial officers serving across all districts of Jharkhand. “An independent judiciary necessarily presupposes an environment in which judicial officers can discharge their constitutional and judicial functions without fear, intimidation, or threats to their personal safety,” the court observed. 

The court also highlighted that the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, underscored that the safety and dignity of judicial officers form an essential facet of judicial independence. 

Noting that the immediate concerns that had prompted the PIL had been substantially addressed, the Jharkhand High Court disposed of the proceedings rather than dismissing the PIL. The court expected that the investigation and pending proceedings arising from the 2022 incident would be brought to their logical conclusion and that the security arrangements presently in place at the district courts would be maintained on an ongoing basis.