Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines for Enhanced Security and Digitization of Judicial Infrastructure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, has addressed pressing concerns regarding security breaches within court premises and the urgent need for technological advancements in the judicial system. The court’s observations shed light on the critical nature of these issues and their far-reaching consequences.

The court’s observations highlighted the urgency of the situation, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat stating, “Would not hope for the litigants who visit the temples of justice dwindle, if the very halls of justice lack the shield of security? How can the litigants secure justice for them when those entrusted to render justice are themselves insecure?” The court emphasized that recent incidents of gunfire within court premises have exposed vulnerabilities that jeopardize the safety of judges, lawyers, court staff, litigants, and the general public.

Acknowledging the tragic incident involving an Additional Sessions Judge, the court expressed concerns about the personal safety of judges. Justice Dipankar Datta noted, “Lives of judges, off the court, of late are also not entirely safe and secure.” The court stressed the importance of implementing comprehensive security protocols to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process.

Addressing the pending contempt petition related to the violation of court orders on the installation of CCTV cameras, the court highlighted two crucial issues. The installation of security measures within court premises and the introduction of audio-visual recording during trials were identified as vital steps toward enhancing the safety and transparency of the justice delivery system.

The court’s guidelines include recommendations for the establishment of security plans, permanent Court Security Units, meticulous CCTV camera installation, modern security equipment, and comprehensive digitization of judicial infrastructure. The court emphasized that immediate measures should be undertaken alongside long-term solutions to ensure the safety of all stakeholders and to maintain faith in the judicial system.

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the significance of these issues and urges the prioritization of these measures. It has directed High Courts to provide monthly reports on the implementation status of the guidelines. The court’s proactive approach aims to enhance access to justice, prevent untoward incidents, and fortify the safety and security of the judicial ecosystem.

The court’s comprehensive judgement is a step forward in ensuring the safety and integrity of the judicial process, with the next hearing scheduled for October 12, 2023.

Date of Decision: 11th August, 2023

PRADYUMAN BISHT vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/11-Aug-2023_Pardyuman_Vs_UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News