The untimely death of additional district and sessions judge Uttam Anand who was fatally knocked down by a vehicle on July 28, 2021, in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad has caught the attention of the apex court.
In a hearing on August 6, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the CBI and said that Anand’s death was an “unfortunate case” and security should be provided to judges. On August 9, the Court noted that the CBI had not made any progress in the case. The three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant taking into account the gravity of the matter said that “we deem it appropriate to direct the CBI to file a report before the High Court of Jharkhand every week and we further request the Chief Justice of the said High Court to monitor the investigation”.
The bench directed the suo motu case to be tagged along with another writ petition, which was filed before the top court in 2019. That petition pertained to the security of judicial officers, where notice was issued to states and the Union of India. Advocate Karunakar Mahalik had filed the PIL seeking a specialised force for security to all courts, judges, lawyers, litigants and witnesses.
On August 8, CBI team recreated the suspicious road accident of Anand.
Earlier, on July 30, the Court took suo motu cognisance of Anand’s death after CCTV footage raised suspicion of foul play while emphasising that it was the State’s obligation to protect judges to ensure they can discharge their duties fearlessly. The Court clarified that it was not interfering in the proceedings before the High Court of Jharkhand, but was rather taking note of similar incidents across the country.
The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Vikas Singh, had mentioned the incident before the CJI, urging the Court to take suo motu cognizance. The State Bar Councils of Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu condemned the death of Judge Anand. The Jharkhand Bar Council also demanded that an expeditious investigation be conducted into it. A resolution was passed by the Delhi Judicial Service Association too condemning the death of Anand. The Association also resolved to extend every possible help to the family of the deceased officer and ensure that rule of law was upheld and timely justice delivered.
On August 4, the CBI took over the inquiry of the case from the Jharkhand police and formed a 20-member Special Investigation Team. The agency registered the case under IPC Section 302 (murder) after the recommendation of the Jharkhand government. On August 3, the Jharkhand High Court had criticised the state police for “feeding questions” to get a “particular answer” from a witness. The High Court also questioned the police on the delay in filing an FIR.
According to the footage, on July 28, the judge was jogging on one side of a fairly wide and empty road at Randhir Verma Chowk at 5 am when a heavy autorickshaw veered towards him, hit him from behind and fled. Locals took him to a nearby hospital where the doctors declared him dead. The Jharkhand police arrested two accused who were in the autorickshaw. The vehicle’s owner was also arrested subsequently. Police suspect it was a premeditated hit-and-run incident but the motive of the crime is not known yet. On August 15, the CBI announced a reward of Rs 5 lakh for information related to the alleged murder.
Days after this incident, Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohd Ahmed Khan, posted in Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur, was injured when a speeding vehicle rammed into his car in Kaushambhi district. The accident took place on the night of July 30 when Khan was returning from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. His gunner was also hurt in the accident.
Also Read: When Will India Get a Felix Frankfurter?
And who can forget the 2014 case of Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, a judge who served in a special CBI court. He was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case and died on December 1, 2014, in Nagpur. But his death erupted into controversy when a Hindi magazine published an interview with Loya’s
family on November 20, 2016, where they raised concerns over his death. A bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, on April 19, 2018, dismissed the PIL and stated the death to be natural and such petitions to be an attack on the judiciary.
In August this year, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the centre and all states to grant “X” category security to all judicial officers. The PIL also sought directions to them to immediately initiate and enforce guidelines for the protection of all judicial officers and advocates. However, the centre told the Court that it may not be “feasible” and “advisable” to have a national level security force like the CISF to guard judges across the country.
In a related incident, a local court in Gurugram on February 7, 2020, awarded death sentence to 32-year-old Mahipal Singh, a former personal security officer, for shooting dead the wife and son of an additional sessions judge at Arcadia Market in Sector 49 of Gurugram on October 13, 2018.
In another case, the apex court on February 12, 2021, dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR and initiation of contempt proceedings against a police officer for allegedly assaulting a district judge in Aurangabad, saying the Bihar Police found nothing in their inquiry. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Aniruddha Bose held that the plea cannot be allowed to remain pending in view of the fact that the inquiry could not verify the allegations of assault. The plea had alleged that Dinesh Kumar Pradhan, a district judge in Aurangabad in Bihar, was assaulted by a police officer in October last year.
In another case, Additional District and Session Judge (ADJ-1) Jai Kishore Dubey of Hilsa court in Nalanda District and his driver Sanjay Prasad came under attack on December 17 from some bikers on the Yogipur stretch. The ADJ was on his way to his official residence.
In another case, Prahlad Tandon, additional district judge, Unnao, was allegedly attacked by lawyers in the courtroom on March 25 this year. Tandon is also special judge (POCSO Act court). After the incident, Tandon resigned. Later, the Unnao Bar Association on the instructions of Bar Council suspended all the eight lawyers and recommended stern action against them.
Independence of the judiciary is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Protection is guaranteed to judges through the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and Section 77 of the IPC, 1860, which protects judicial acts done by judges while exercising their powers in good faith. Judges face security threats as their job requires them to routinely deal with anti-social elements. Any influence on the judiciary by either the State or litigants adversely impacts the fair administration of justice.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal News Service