Delhi Court Most Commendably Grants Bail To Upadhyay
The tragic killing of Judge Uttam Anand in 2021 raised serious concerns about the safety of judicial officers in India. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment underscoring the State’s responsibility in ensuring the safety of judges, holding that "State cannot ignore its duty" and "should have provided security" to the deceased judge.
Below is a detailed legal explanation of the Supreme Court’s observations, reasoning, and relevant case laws that support the principle of State liability and judicial independence.
🧑⚖️ Background of the Case
On July 28, 2021, Judge Uttam Anand, an Additional District & Sessions Judge in Dhanbad (Jharkhand), was hit by an autorickshaw during his morning walk. The CCTV footage showed the vehicle deliberately veering to hit him. He succumbed to injuries.
The incident raised suspicion of a targeted killing, possibly linked to cases he was handling, including those involving high-profile criminals.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter titled:
"In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (SMW (Crl) No. 2/2021)"
🔍 Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the State failed in providing security to a judicial officer?
What is the extent of State liability in protecting judicial officers?
How to strengthen judicial security to maintain independence and rule of law?
🧾 Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Negligence of the State Machinery
The Court held that the State had a duty to protect Judge Uttam Anand, particularly because he was handling sensitive criminal cases.
The State failed to assess the risk, and no preventive action was taken to ensure his safety.
The absence of security amounted to negligence, especially when the threat perception was high.
2. Duty of Care Owed by the State
The Supreme Court reiterated that the State is a constitutional guardian of the rule of law and must protect judicial officers who are exposed to risks due to their duties.
The bench observed:
"The death of the judicial officer is a grim reminder that the independence of the judiciary cannot be protected unless the judicial officers feel safe and secure."
3. State Accountability
The Court emphasized that security of judicial officers is not a matter of privilege but a constitutional necessity to ensure the independence of the judiciary (Article 50).
Holding the State of Jharkhand accountable, the Court said that it could not wash its hands of the incident by terming it an isolated act.
⚖️ Relevant Case Laws Cited or Related
1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Principle: State liability in cases of custodial death due to negligence or misconduct by State actors.
Held that Article 21 (Right to Life) is enforceable against the State for failure to protect life, even if it arises from omission.
Relevance: Used to reinforce the idea that failure to protect Judge Anand was a constitutional wrong, not just administrative failure.
2. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
The Supreme Court highlighted the rights of individuals in custody and the responsibility of the State to ensure protection.
Relevance: The broader principle that law enforcement must ensure protection of life, applicable to judicial officers.
3. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526
Recognized that dignity and safety of individuals, particularly those involved in justice delivery, must be ensured.
Relevance: Underlines the importance of protecting those in public service, including judges.
4. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96
Discussed State's obligation to protect vulnerable individuals in custody and in the justice system.
Relevance: The State’s passive role in not preventing threats to Judge Anand is a violation of its constitutional duty.
📌 Key Legal Principles Established
Right to Life (Article 21):
Includes protection from deliberate harm, particularly when the individual is a public servant performing judicial duties.
State cannot plead helplessness in such cases.
State Responsibility (Article 12 + Doctrine of Vicarious Liability):
If any State organ or omission causes violation of fundamental rights, the State is liable.
Judicial Independence (Article 50, Directive Principles):
Security and independence of the judiciary is integral to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judges must feel free from fear or external pressure to uphold justice.
🔧 Supreme Court’s Directions & Recommendations
Directed the Centre and State Governments to:
Frame standard operating procedures (SOPs) for security of judicial officers.
Ensure regular assessment of threat perception.
Install CCTV cameras in vulnerable areas and provide safe residences and escorts where needed.
Establish coordination between judiciary and local police.
The Court also asked the CBI to investigate the killing and submit regular reports to ensure an impartial probe.
🏛️ Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Judge Uttam Anand's case serves as a milestone in judicial protection jurisprudence in India. It holds that:
“The State has a constitutional obligation to protect judicial officers, and any failure amounts to a breach of fundamental rights under Article 21.”
The judgment goes beyond individual negligence and addresses systemic failure, seeking structural reforms in how judicial officers are protected in India. It reinforces the idea that judicial independence is meaningless without personal security.
RELATED Blog
0 comments