Panel asked for CISF presence in July itself

The minutes of the meeting noted various reasons for recommending CISF. During the deliberations in the meeting, various associations and police personnel had expressed the opinion that in view of continuing police-advocate altercation and strained relations among them, security cover for the high court can be handed over to CISF. Police informed the committee that they had faced problems with advocates on at least 10 different occasions in the past four years. The committee noted several lapses in the security provided on the campus.

The bench has pointed out that this is not the first time that the functioning of the high court or first bench was sought to be distracted for one reason or other, whether connected with this issue or otherwise. There is also an unhealthy practice of lawyers raising slogans and marching in the corridors, it said.

"The earlier incidents witnessed by this Court was over the issue of detention of fishermen in Sri Lanka and post recommendation of names for elevation to high court, lawyers had even entered the court and indulged in sloganeering. This problem has aggravated far more in the Madurai Bench of this Court, where there have been such periodic incidents of advocates taking out processions, entering the court and disrupting proceedings," the bench noted.

The Union ministry of home affairs had issued guidelines in 2007 for security of High Courts and district and subordinate courts in the country to Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories. The guidelines provide for the High Court in the States and UTs to be declared as a High Security Zone.

The bench said “As informed to us, this guideline has not been implemented by the State government. We cannot wait any more and we issue directions to the state government to forthwith take action and initiate declaration of the high court as a High Security Zone by the next date”. The bench adjourned the matter to September 18.