The growing concern over the safety of Delhi’s district court judges has now reached the Delhi High Court, where judges have underlined that threats and intimidation have become a distressing part of judicial work. 

Most judicial officers in Delhi’s district courts do not have even basic security cover. Despite dealing routinely with hardened criminals, gang-related cases and volatile litigants, the overwhelming majority function without a dedicated Personal Security Officer (PSO). 

Judges have long been demanding security cover, but concerns have intensified in recent months after a series of reported threats and incidents. In one case last April, a woman judge at the Dwarka court was allegedly verbally abused and threatened in open court by a man she had just convicted in a six-year-old cheque-bounce case. 

“Tu hai kya cheez... tu bahar mil, dekhte hain kaise zinda ghar jaati hai (Who do you think you are... come outside and we’ll see how you make it home alive),” the accused allegedly shouted after the conviction order was pronounced. 

In another incident, a Delhi judge was allegedly threatened while on an evening walk in the Kakrola area of Dwarka. Two unidentified men stopped their car near the judge, repeatedly honked to attract his attention and then threatened him before fleeing. 

Judicial officers, who did not wish to be named, told The Hindu that such incidents were only the visible ones. 

“These are publicly reported examples, but most threats remain unreported,” one officer said, describing the present security situation as “bilkul Bhagwan bharose chal raha hai (It is running completely on God’s mercy)”. 

No official data 

There is no official record of the nature and extent of intimidation faced by judges across the Capital. On April 20, the District Courts Welfare and PSO Committee at Tis Hazari Courts issued a circular asking all judicial officers posted in the Central district to submit details of threats received by them “in relation to discharging their duty or otherwise”, along with supporting documents, so that the information could be collated and placed before the committee. 

In March, the Judicial Service Association of Delhi moved the Delhi High Court seeking enhanced security arrangements, including PSOs for district judges. 

The petition said there had been instances of road rage involving judges in East Delhi and the Saket District Court, as well as attacks during court proceedings, including incidents in which shoes and other objects were thrown at the dais. It added that judges in Delhi routinely faced stalking, threats, verbal abuse and intimidation while commuting to courts or during judicial proceedings. 

Senior advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for the association, argued that the existing practice of granting security only in specific cases of threat perception was inadequate. He submitted that the threats were directly linked to the discharge of judicial duties and that failure to address the issue adequately “would not only diminish and weaken the majesty and dignity of the court but also create fear in their minds”. 

The petition also relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in the Dhanbad judge killing case, in which it held that the “safety and security of stakeholders in the judicial process is non-negotiable” and called for comprehensive security plans in courts across the country. 

Hearing the matter, Justice Manoj Jain observed that “the severity of the grievance raised in the present petition cannot be undermined, from any angle whatsoever.” 

The High Court has directed the Delhi government, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi Police to hold meetings and file a status report on the issue. The authorities are also expected to examine the security frameworks in States like Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, where provisions already exist for providing PSOs to judicial officers. 

Practical constraints  

Delhi currently has more than 800 district judges. Providing round-the-clock PSOs to all of them would require nearly 2,400 personnel on rotation, a number judicial officers themselves acknowledge is not presently feasible.  

At present, only about 10 to 12 judges are provided PSOs, and even those are not available on a 24/7 basis, according to sources familiar with the matter.  

One judicial officer suggested a “multitasking PSO” system, under which a single trained officer could provide security inside court premises and accompany judges during travel.