SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 1965

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Rakesh Tiwari, V.K. Shukla, Arun Tandon, Tarun Agarwala, Dilip Gupta, Satyendra Singh Chauhan, JJ.
In Re : - Appellant
Versus
Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (Pil) No. - 15895 of 2015
Decided On : 11-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anshu Singh.
For the Respondent: A.K. Bajpai,Ajai Shankar Pathak,Ashutosh Dwivedi,Ayub Khan,C S C,C.P.Upadhyay,Chandra Kumar Singh,D.K.Tiwari,Daya Shankar Mishra,Diwakar Rai Sharma,H.N.Singh,Hemendra Pratap Singh,Jyotish Awasthi,In Person,Mohd. Asif,Mohit Bihari Mathur,Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui,P.K. Jain,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,R.K.Singh,Rakesh Pandey,Ratnakar Upadhyay,Ritesh Srivastava,S.C. Mishra,Sanjay Singh,Sanjiv Kumar Pandey,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Shishupal Sharma,Sudhir Dixit,Suresh Chandra Pandey,Swetashwa Agrawal,Tahir Husain,V.C.Srivastava,Vineet Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh.

Courts have the authority to intervene and issue orders to address security threats and violence at Court premises, including the imposition of prohibitory orders against individuals posing security risks.

Headnote:

Security and Law and Order - Court's Intervention in Response to Violence at Lucknow Court Premises

Fact of the Case:

The Court assembled to monitor the maintenance of security and law and order in all Courts across the State of Uttar Pradesh due to increasing incidents of violence and breaches of security. The violence at Lucknow Court premises resulted in extensive damage to public and private property, including vandalism of the Senior Registrar's office.

Finding of the Court:

The Court issued notices to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and various Bar Associations, and directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to submit a comprehensive report on the incident. It also issued prohibitory orders against a lawyer and scheduled further proceedings to address the matter.

Issues: Concerns over violence and security breaches at Court premises, identification of responsible parties, role of District Administration and police authorities, and the need for strict security measures.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court intervened to address the escalating violence and security threats at Court premises, emphasizing the need for comprehensive reports, strict security measures, and prohibitory orders against individuals posing security risks.

Final Decision: The Court directed the submission of comprehensive reports, issued prohibitory orders against an individual, and scheduled further proceedings to address the matter.

JUDGMENT

This Bench of seven Judges of this Court has been assembling on a regular basis to monitor the situation pertaining to the maintenance of security and law and order in the premises of all Courts across the State of Uttar Pradesh, including the High Court. The intervention of the High Court on a systemic level has become necessary because of increasing incidents of violence within the precincts of the Courts and serious breaches of security which threaten not merely the orderly functioning of the Court but the safety of common citizens as well as of the members of the Bar.

2. Media reports have appeared both in the electronic and print media in regard to instances of large scale arson and violence which took place at Lucknow yesterday. The incident appears to have originated in the unnatural death of a member of the Bar at Lucknow.

3. We are deeply concerned with the violence which has taken place during the course of which, injuries have been sustained and extensive loss and damage has been caused to public property.

4. The learned Advocate General has stated before the Court, on instructions, that two buses of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation were burnt, seven four wheelers were destroyed together with twenty motorcycles and as many as fifty seven four wheelers were extensively damaged. The Senior Registrar of this Court at Lucknow has also reported that his office was vandalized and that he was manhandled and abused by persons who appear to have been members of the Bar.

5. We are of the view that, having regard to the aforesaid background, it would be necessary for the Court to be fully apprised of the genesis and causes of the incident and the role and responsibilities in that regard discharged by all concerned.

6. We, accordingly, issue notice to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh through its Chairman, Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association and the Central Bar Association. Notice to the respective Bar Associations shall be issued through their respective Secretaries.

7. In the meantime, we direct the Principal Secretary (Home) to submit a comprehensive report to this Court on the basis of footage which is available including media footage as well as after making an enquiry into the circumstances relating to the incident which took place yesterday. The report shall, in particular, also identify the person or persons responsible for acts of arson and violence. Among other things, the report shall also clarify the following:

(i) The nature and cause of the incident which led to the violence at Lucknow on 10 February 2016;

(ii) The nature and extent of damage to public property;

(iii) The nature and extent, if any, of damage caused to private property;

(iv) The person or persons responsible for the incident;

(v) The role of the District Administration in maintaining law and order and in controlling the incidents of violence; and

(vi) The role of the police authorities.

8. The report shall also indicate as to whether there was any resort to the use of force either by means of lathi charge or tear gas on the part of the police and the extent and circumstances in respect thereof. The report shall also indicate the action, if any, which has been taken against the persons who have been found erring or involved in the incident. The report shall also indicate whether the State police force entered the precincts of the High Court at Lucknow and if so, under whose direction and whether any resort to tear gas was made within the precincts of the High Court.

9. Pending further orders of the Court, we issue the following directions:

(i) The District Administration as well as the CRPF shall take all necessary and proper steps to ensure that fire arms are strictly prohibited within the precincts of any Court across the State;

(ii) The security of the High Court shall continue to be with CRPF as before;

(iii) The District Administration shall take all due and proper steps to provide security cover in the parking spaces where






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top