In light of a spate of recent gunfire incidents in Delhi’s courtrooms, the Supreme Court has highlighted the pressing need for fortified security measures, emphasizing the establishment of permanent Court Security Units (CSU) within every judicial complex nationwide. These precautions aim to protect judges, lawyers, court staff, litigants, and the public from potential threats.

Such violent episodes, the apex court warned on Friday, endanger the very essence and sanctity of courtrooms as bastions of justice and rule of law. Addressing this, the bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta commented on the dire situation: “It is alarming that even the national capital has seen at least three major gunfire incidents in its courtrooms within the past year. To preserve the court’s role as a beacon of justice, it’s paramount that comprehensive safety measures be introduced for the welfare of all involved.”

Delhi’s court complexes have unfortunately become synonymous with gun violence. This includes a July confrontation at Tis Hazari court, an April clash at the Rohini court complex, and another April incident where a woman was targeted in the Saket court by a lawyer. Highlighting the severity, the infamous gangster Jitender Gogi met his end in the Rohini court complex in September 2021, with his assailants subsequently neutralized by Delhi police on-site.

Acknowledging that advanced security tools like CCTV cameras have been compromised in the past, the top court stressed the need for holistic security strategies to maintain public faith in the judiciary. They believe that the mere presence of surveillance equipment is insufficient, advocating for more robust security measures in the larger public interest. This, however, does not diminish the necessity for short-term solutions to be implemented by relevant authorities while comprehensive measures are developed.

The Supreme Court further outlined that high courts, in collaboration with principal secretaries, state government home departments, and police directors general or commissioners, should devise a security blueprint. This plan should detail the creation of permanent CSUs, complete with staffing protocols, duties, and deployment methods. Emphasizing the importance of proper training for security personnel, the court also stressed the necessity for state governments to provide funds, ensuring that CCTV installation remains a priority for new court projects.

Concluding their directive, the apex court stressed the need for heightened security at court entrances and exits. Suggestions included deploying ample police force, vehicle security stickers, frisking, metal detectors, baggage scanners, court-specific passes, and biometric systems. If required, the court even proposed restricting or prohibiting court premises as public thoroughfares.

  Delhi Police, Dipankar Datta, India, Rohini court complex, S Ravindra Bhat, Saket court, Supreme Court, Tis Hazari court