Police Warn on Judicial Security Impact

Judicial security is the issue here — and the argument has gotten very concrete. Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court this week that it should not be forced into blanket protection for all judicial officers in the capital. The police position is simple: give protection fast when the High Court asks, but keep long-term cover tied to individual threat assessments, because a universal rollout would pull people away from broader law-and-order work. ### What changed this week? An affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court set out the police stance in black and white. It said any request from the High Court for security for a judicial officer would trigger immediate interim protection, with a fuller threat review to follow. But the same filing warned that extending personal security across the board would have “significant policy implications” and could hurt the force’s wider duties. The case was then adjourned to July 7, with the court asking Delhi Police to place more meeting records on the file. (hindustantimes.com) ### Who is asking for more protection? The push is coming from the Judicial Service Association of Delhi, which represents trial court judges. It wants personal security officers and better protection at judges’ residences. Back in March, the High Court treated that plea as serious enough to order a meeting involving the Union Home Ministry, the Delhi government, and senior police officials within a week. (hindustantimes.com) ### Why are judges pushing now? Because the complaints are not abstract anymore. Delhi’s district judges have described stalking, threats, road-rage episodes, and intimidation linked to sensitive criminal work. Recent reporting also pointed to open-court threats, threats during evening walks, and objects being thrown toward the dais in some court incidents. Basically, the judges’ side is saying this is no longer a theoretical workplace-risk debate. (hindustantimes.com) ### What does Delhi Police say the current system is? The police are defending a tiered model. Right now, 44 sitting Delhi High Court judges get security on a positional basis — meaning the office itself carries protection. Another 12 judicial officers have security because their individual threat perception justified it. The affidavit also leaned on the “Yellow Book,” existing practice in other states, and manpower limits to argue that case-by-case review is still the right framework. (thehindu.com) ### Why is “blanket security” such a big ask? Because security cover is labor-intensive. One officer protected on paper often means multiple personnel in practice, depending on shifts and residence arrangements. Delhi has more than 800 district judges, so a universal system would be enormous even before you count escorts, static guards, and rotation. That is the catch in this whole fight — the judiciary is arguing from vulnerability, while police are arguing from finite headcount. (hindustantimes.com) ### Why did the High Court react so sharply earlier? In April, the court openly criticized the government and police approach, warning that inadequate protection for judges can compromise judicial independence. That matters because judges are supposed to decide cases without fear of retaliation. If trial judges handling gang cases or other volatile matters feel exposed outside court, the institutional problem is bigger than one staffing dispute. (thehindu.com) ### So what happens next? The court now has two ideas in front of it. One is the judges’ demand for stronger, more systematic protection. The other is the police offer of immediate interim cover whenever the High Court flags a case, followed by formal assessment. July 7 looks like the next checkpoint, when the bench will review more records from the official meetings and decide how hard to push the state. (barandbench.com) ### Bottom line? This is really a fight over how to protect judges without hollowing out policing elsewhere. Delhi Police is saying yes to rapid response, but no to automatic protection for everyone. The High Court seems unconvinced that the old model is enough — especially now that threats against trial judges are out in the open. (hindustantimes.com)