Guidelines on security and hygiene conditions of the Allahabad High Court issued

Allahabad High Court: In a unique PIL petition which raised issues such as cleanliness and security conditions of Allahabad High Court in which division bench of Sudhir Agarwal and Suneet Kumar JJ. gave extensive guidelines and restricted the entry for vendors selling tobacco, paan and snacks etc in the court premises. The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 200, if any advocate, litigant, official or any other person is found spitting, smoking or throwing something in the gallery, wall or any other place of the court. The Court further directed for the installation of CCTV cameras in adequate number at appropriate places at court premises so as to keep strict vigil or surveillance over the activities inside the court premises. While considering the major issue of security, the Court further directed the preparation of rolls of Registered Clerks and Unregistered Clerks to advocates, duly verified by advocates on roll and issuance of identity cards for such clerks and also for Advocate on Roll. The Court also barred the entry of any other person unless entry pass is issued to him.

In the instant case which is one of a kind, the counsel for Respondents Mr. Manish Goyal appreciated the cause for which the petitioner has come and praised him for showing serious concern regarding unhygienic and unworkable conditions in the court’s campus.

The Court finally held that security arrangement in the High Court shall be principally equivalent to Supreme Court of India and directed Registrar General of the court in consultation with the chief secretary and other authorities concerned to finalise all the modalities and get security arrangements made effective and functional within 2 months. Furthermore, the Court instructed the State Government that there shall be no financial constraint in this matter, as no compromise can be permitted in respect of security arrangements for High Court. Deepak Kumar Pandey v. Registrar General, PIL No. 33285 of 2014, decided on 30.06.2014

To read the full judgment, refer to SCCOnLine

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.