The Supreme Court of India has intervened to provide urgent protection to a serving judicial officer in Delhi who has been receiving threats from individuals convicted of kidnapping him in 2008. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the abduction, approached the apex court citing a direct threat to his life and the safety of his family members.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, emphasized the necessity of state intervention given the criminal background of the convicts.
Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the bench directed the Delhi Police to conduct a thorough assessment of the petitioner’s threat perception and provide adequate security. The protection extends beyond the petitioner; the Court also directed the Gujarat Police to assess the safety of the petitioner’s brother, who is also serving as a judicial officer in Gujarat.
Furthermore, the bench placed the responsibility on the authorities in Kurukshetra, Haryana—where the petitioner’s family resides—to ensure their safety and prevent any potential harm.
In a significant move to ensure the petitioner’s safety, the Supreme Court ordered that no parole or remission be granted to the convicts without prior permission from the jurisdictional High Court.
Addressing ongoing proceedings in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the convicts have sought remission, the apex court clarified that should any such relief be granted, the order must remain stayed for a period of two weeks. This window is intended to allow the judicial officer sufficient time to pursue legal remedies against their release.
The case dates back to 2008 when the petitioner, then a minor, was kidnapped. The individuals involved were subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the petitioner informed the Court that even from behind bars or through associates, the convicts have continued to extend threats.
The bench noted that the convicts are “hardened” individuals facing multiple other criminal cases. “Keeping in view the antecedents of the convicts or their associates, it seems to us that some necessary directions are required to be issued for the protection of the petitioner and his family members,” the Court observed while disposing of the plea.
The Supreme Court had previously signaled its concern in December, stating that the convicts would not be released through remission while the matter was being considered.
