Meghalaya High Court order for Z and Y category security substituted
SHILLONG: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said existing security arrangements will continue for the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya, Uma Nath Singh, and former Judge T.N.K Singh.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Sajay Laloo and the State of Meghalaya against the January 7, 2016, order of the High Court for providing Z category security to the former Meghalaya Chief Justice and Y category to the former Judge after their retirement.
The Supreme Court lawyer and legal counsel of the State Government, Ranjan Mukherjee, said over phone from Delhi that during the final hearing on Wednesday, the Apex Court after going through the correspondences of the State government, which were placed before the Court in a sealed cover, observed that the present security arrangement provided to Uma Nath Singh in UP and T.N.K Singh in Manipur will continue.
Besides, Central security agencies in consultation with their counterparts in the State will also review the security arrangements whenever necessary.
According to Mukherjee, the order of the High Court issued on January 7, 2016, stands modified or set aside.
“The Z and Y category security as ordered by the High Court is substituted by the present security arrangements,” Mukherjee said.
At the end of the hearing, the Court also placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Counsel appearing for the State of Meghalaya.
In a statement, Laloo said, “The Supreme Court superseded the order of Uma Nath Singh in the light of security assessment carried out by security agency.
The High Court order is no longer binding and he (Uma Nath Singh) need not be consulted for assessing security cover to him which was the direction passed by him as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court.”
Uma Nath Singh retired on January 13 last year and in a suo motu proceeding initiated by a bench headed by him had ordered the Meghalaya government to provide security on a permanent basis to the chief justice and judges “at their place of residence after their retirement”.
But the petition questioned the propriety of the judges who were about to retire to give this kind of direction giving benefit to themselves in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Last year, the Supreme Court set aside a similar erroneous order passed by the Rajasthan High Court that directed the Centre to exempt frisking of judges of the High Court whenever they travel by air.
