Sri Sajay Laloo, a resident of Meghalaya who is represent by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, approach Supreme Court against the impugned judgment passed by Meghalaya High Court for security of both serving & retired judges.
In December, last year Meghalaya HC asked Central Govt. to provide security covers to judges (serving & retired) with regard to that they are working in north-east & dealing with cases of incumbent & facing threats. In January 2016 Centre informed High Court that security will be assessed by Centre & State agencies even after the retirement of judges at their place of stay.
HC also said security could not be provided to them without their prior approval of protectee & security should be given to them when they are traveling from one place to another.
Petitioner also contended in his petition that security should not be given to retired judges at public cost in breach of principle of ‘conflict of interest’. It is also argued that both the learned judges who passed the impugned order in January 2016 were due to retire in the same month, whereas the impugned orders were passed on 7th, 13th and 27th January, 2016, for grant of their own security on permanent basis and treat them as a state guest after retirement.”
Bench presided by the Chief Justice of India, has directed the Centre and the State to respond within a week. The Bench has reportedly observed that the high court should have at least informed the Supreme Court before passing it, because it was largely an administrative order.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS