Rakia Imran
In a recent alleged communication gap between a High Court Judge and SSP Sumer Pratap Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court summoned the latter to be present before it to explain his contradictory take on the risk perception against the Judge.
A suo moto case related to the judge’s safety has been heard in the court, as the Judge’s PSO (Personal Security Officer) gun was pocketed by a person at Golden Temple in Amritsar in September 2024 to shoot himself dead.
Further today, a closure report was being filed in the case by Haryana IPS Officer Manisha Chaudhary, who probed the incident, and informed the Division-bench comprising of ‘Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh’ that the incident had nothing to do with the Judge. A sealed cover report was submitted by the Chandigarh Police to the Court, which said that the firing incident has heightened the perception of peril to the Hon’ble Justice.
Calling it contradictory to the investigation report, the Court said, “Investigation says the incident has no concern with the Judge, and you are saying because of that incident, there is a threat perception to the Hon’ble Judge. Can you take two different stands…”
However, the case escalated to further ambiguity where the counsel representing the UT said that they were apprehensive of the investigation done by the Haryana Police. At this, the Court probed the intelligence post the officer was holding, and asked if there’s no coordination between him and other agencies.
The UT counsel in it’s defence said that the officer was simply being conservative with regard to the Judge’s security. The Court, furthermore, moved to summon the officer to give him the chance to explain his position.