Chief Justice wants CISF to protect Madras court for 6 months

CHENNAI: The unanimity of the Tami Nadu government, the Centre and top Bar leaders in opposing deployment of an independent and neutral force such as CISF to guard the Madras high court campuses surprised the first bench on Monday. But it did not budge.
Making it clear it preferred an expert agency to state police for insulating the court from external and internal disturbances, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam said court security should be taken over by CISF at least for a period of six months.“We are of the view that the role has to be performed by an independent security force, while not removing the state police totally from the picture,” the judges said.
The bench gave the state and central governments till October 30 to work out details and submit a report by October 30.
The case relates to suo motu PIL proceedings initiated by the first bench after it came under siege for a whole day on September 14 by a small group of advocates that demanded declaration of Tamil as official language of the court. Besides directing the state government to declare the high court a high security zone as advised by the Centre in 2007, the bench ordered CISF security for itself.
On Monday, when the matter came up for further hearing, Tamil Nadu advocate general A L Somayaji said the court’s views were being politicised and the state government was against handing over court security to CISF. Additional solicitor general of India G Rajagopalan said the Centre did have a discussion on the court’s order and added that it would file an affidavit to convince the court. With the state government hesitant to allow the central force, it should not turn into centre-state wrangle, the bench was informed.
R C Paul Kanagaraj, president of Madras High Court Advocates Association, said, “We are ready to give an undertaking that we would lend all possible support and cooperation to state police in their endeavour to secure the campuses,” he said.
To this, the Chief Justice said, “I am surprised.” However, sticking to its stand that an independent and neutral force was mandatory, the bench clarified that its stand and observations should not be construed as ‘reflection on the ability of the state police.’