The Supreme Court stated on February 24 in a petition seeking instructions regarding Special Security measures for the protection of judges, litigants, advocates, and the people involved in the administration of justice of Court premises in all Indian courts that a "one size fits all solution" might not be successful in handling the issue of security. It was suggested that the first step be the identification of the locations, districts, and States that demand priority heightened protection.

Considering the viability of focusing on areas/districts/places/States where increased security is a concern and suggesting solutions in that regard, the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, and Counsels representing the petitioners were asked by a Bench made up of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta. 

Judge Bhat advised that the State Government could think about periodically reviewing the threat perception in cases of threats made against judges. It was also noted that while an impulsive decision by the Court would not put a pressure on the resources of the State and the Center, focus is being placed on identifying the regions that require increased protection.

“We cannot strain the resources of all States and the Centre. There are sections of society who do not have any security, otherwise we would be diverting that. We have to see it very very carefully.”

“...please understand that the courts are public places. But we are making it into a fortress. If someone wants to come and follow court proceedings we have made the process impossible…Some judicial officers are also using normal transport. Not all judges require securities in peaceful areas”, Justice Bhat reckoned.

He added -

“Why assume that the State is not doing its duties. The focus should be on areas where there is a threat perception…You have to get the feedback from different areas, otherwise we will come up with a one size fits all situation.”

Case Title: Karunakar Mahalik v. Union of India And Ors. 
Citation: WP(C) No. 1422/2019