You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

CISF cover meant only for industries: HC

Press Trust of India  |  Chennai 

The Madras High today orally observed that security is meant only for industries and not for the high About two years after ordering the deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to insulate the Madras High campus from external and internal disturbances, the seems to be having a rethink on the issue. The had issued orders for cover as a temporary arrangement in October, 2015 on a suo motu PIL proceedings initiated after the witnessed unruly scenes and obstruction caused by lawyers over certain issues. When the suo motu PIL came up today, Acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh, who is heading the first Bench, observed, "I am (working) in this for about a year now, and there are no terrorist activities warranting " The Acting CJ said a premises was for the general public and it should not be like martial. When the PIL was taken up, former Madras High Advocates Association president Paul Kanagaraj sought revocation of the suspension of nine advocates who allegedly clashed with in the in November 2015. The directed him to file a memo and orally observed that security is only for the industries and not for high which is meant for general public. When it was brought to the notice of the Bench that for the cover, the Tamil Nadu government is paying Rs 32 crore per year towards salary component alone, Justice Ramesh said, "If the Centre is keen to provide high security to the court, why should the state government pay." "Also, if any law and order problem arises, it is for the local police to manage. Everywhere in India, only the respective state police is managing courts." When assistant solicitor-general of India Su Srinivasan pointed out that Delhi High was under security, the bench said, "It may be required there because Delhi is nearer to Pakistan." Stating that the legal fraternity will fully cooperate with the state police, Paul Kanagaraj said, "The state had paid Rs 66 crore last year for salary of alone, and that accommodation and infrastructure were additional expenses." He said there was no need to remove the infrastructure, but it could be occupied by state police personnel. Paul Kanagaraj and Advocate Elephant G Rajendran said the state government should not adopt double standards in the matter.

They alleged that the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu wrote to the Centre saying it was unable to manage lawyers. After Justice Ramesh suggested that Rajendran could move the Supreme with regard to payment of Rs 66 crore by the state government for the security, the latter said he would do so. Additional advocate-general C Manishankar furnished a report and photographs of under-construction frisking points of the on campus. The bench after hearing the arguments posted the matter for further hearing to June 5.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Mon, March 20 2017. 23:22 IST