IB, CBI do not help the judiciary at all: SC for threatening judges | Latest India News

0

NEW DELHI:

Concerned that judges are being slandered and threatened for failing to issue favorable orders in “high profile cases”, the Supreme Court complained on Friday that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) “do not do justice at all help”.

A bank led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana regretted that judges are not a priority for the investigative authorities and that their complaints are ignored, despite the fact that specialized bodies such as the CBI are involved.

“In one or two places the court ordered a CBI investigation. I am very sorry to tell you that the CBI has done nothing in over a year. At one point, I know, the CBI did nothing. I think we expected some changes in the attitude of CBI. But nothing changes in the attitude of the CBI. I’m sorry to watch this, but this is the situation, ”the CJI told Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was called for help by the bank.

The bank, which also included Judge Surya Kant, heard a public interest litigation over the death of another District and Court Judge Uttam Anand, who was fatally struck by a vehicle on July 28 in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad.

When inquiring with Jharkhand’s Attorney General Rajiv Ranjan about the safety of judicial officers in the state, the bank vented its fear of the lack of help from the police, CBI and IB. While Ranjan said the investigation into Anand’s death had been turned over to the CBI due to the possibility of an interstate perspective, the bank noted that the CBI had taken no action on cases where judges had approached them with complaints.

“There are several cases in the country where gangsters are involved and where high-ranking people are accused. Judges are also psychologically threatened by sending messages on Whatsapp, SMS or YouTube. This is a new trend in this country. When high-profile people don’t get cheap jobs, they start slandering the judges on all forums, ”he stated.

The court asked the AG to show “personal interest” in the matter so that the judiciary could get help from the investigative authorities.

For his part, Venugopal replied that because of their duties, judges are indeed more vulnerable than bureaucrats and that it is time to take tough measures to protect judges.

Regarding a 2019 case related to the safety of judges and courthouses, the bank said the center and states have yet to submit their responses explaining how they will ensure security inside and outside the courthouse . It asked the AG to submit a proper affidavit from the Union government in this regard.

On the Jharkhand case, the bank noted that the state was “negligent”. “Look at this unfortunate death of a young judge. You cannot ignore the negligence of the state. That is the failure of the state. There is a coal mafia in the area and the judges’ society and residences should have been kept safe. But nothing was done, ”it commented.

At the time, Ranjan stated that law enforcement officials’ companies and homes had been given security by police and protection forces and that all necessary steps had been taken.

The court then adjourned the matter to Monday and requested the CBI to be present to update the investigation into Anand’s death.

On July 30, the bank stressed that it is the state’s duty to protect judges to ensure they can perform their duties fearlessly when Suo motu learned (ex officio) of Anand’s death. When the Suo Motu case was registered as “In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad),” the court ordered the chief secretary and director general of the Jharkhand state police to jointly submit an investigation report for a week.

Concerned that judges are being slandered and threatened for failing to issue favorable orders in “high profile cases”, the Supreme Court complained on Friday that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) “do not do justice at all help”.

A bank headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana regretted that judges are not a priority for investigative authorities and that their complaints are ignored despite being part of a specialized body such as the CBI.

“In one or two places the court ordered a CBI investigation. I am very sorry to say that CBI has done nothing in over a year. At one point, I know, CBI didn’t do anything. I think we were expecting some changes in the attitude of CBI. But nothing changes in the attitude of CBI. I’m sorry to watch this, but this is the situation, ”the CJI told Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was called for help by the bank.

The bank, to which Judge Surya Kant belonged, was negotiating the death of another district and court judge, Uttam Anand, who was hit by a vehicle on July 28 in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad.

When inquiring with Jharkhand’s Attorney General Rajiv Ranjan about the safety of judicial officers in the state, the bank expressed fear at the lack of help from the police, CBI and IB. While Ranjan said the investigation into Anand’s death had been turned over to the CBI due to the possibility of an interstate perspective, the bank noted that the CBI had taken no action in cases where judges came to them with complaints.

“There are several cases in the country where gangsters are involved and where high-ranking people are accused. Judges are also psychologically threatened by sending messages on Whatsapp, SMS or YouTube. This is a new trend in this country. When high-profile people don’t get cheap jobs, they start slandering the judges on all forums, ”he stated.

The court asked Venugopal, the centre’s chief judicial officer, to show “personal interest” in the matter so that the judiciary could obtain help from investigative agencies.

For its part, Venugopal replied that the nature of their duties actually made judges more vulnerable than bureaucrats and that it was time to take tough measures to protect judges.

Regarding a 2019 case related to the safety of judges and courthouses, the bank said the center and states have yet to submit their responses explaining how they will ensure security inside and outside the courthouse . It asked the AG to submit a proper affidavit from the Union government in this regard.

On the Jharkhand case, the bank noted that the state was “negligent”.

“Look at this unfortunate death of a young judge. You cannot ignore the negligence of the state. That is the failure of the state. There is a coal mafia in the area and the judges’ society and residences should have been kept safe. But nothing was done, ”it commented.

At the time, Rajiv Ranjan said that judicial officers’ companies and homes had received security protection from the police and that all necessary steps were being taken.

The court then adjourned the matter until Monday and requested the presence of CBI on the matter to inform it of the state of play of the investigation into the death of the Dhanbad sitting judge.

The bank emphasized the state’s obligation to protect judges to ensure they can perform their duties fearlessly on July 30th when it registered the suo motu (ex officio) case: “In Re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges ( Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad) ”.


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.