Latest News
Back
Document:
Judgement Analysis: Union of India vs Rajasthan High Court &ors
This case was before the Supreme Court of India. T.S Thakur D.Y Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao delivered the judgement.
Facts of the case:
On 10th February 2000, this case before the Rajasthan High Court arose from a report that was published in the daily edition of Rajasthan Patrika of a breach of Security which took place at Sanganeer Airport Jaipur. On 8th February 2000, a person was to board a flight to Mumbai was removed by airport security staff for carrying a revolver with six live cartridges. He possessed an arms license which had expired. After the passenger was apprehended he was sent to Sanganeer Police Station where his revolver and live cartridges were taken away and a First Information Report under the Arms Act was lodged. The passenger left the police station and after dodging the duty officer he boarded the aircraft which was for Mumbai. He was prosecuted for the violence of Section 21 and section 13 of the Arms Act and it was subsequently convicted by the civil judge and the judicial magistrate of the first class at Sanganer and sentenced to a fine of rupees one thousand The accused paid a fine and as the Additional Superintendent of police the immigration status before this court, the revolver and live cartridge was released. so much was done for the security.
The Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the news report and a public interest petition was registered. During hearing the division, the bench directed the Chief Security officer of the airport, the Secretary tho the home department and the director-general of police to show cause how a security lapse took place
Given the provisions contained in section 5(e) of Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rule 8(a) of the Aircraft Rules, 1957 the union government has made provisions for security screening
Certain categories of persons are not allowed from frisking and searching, screening of the hand bang if carried by themselves. The details of the list of such person have been separately circulated to all concerned. On May 1st, 2002 a circular issued by BCAS by which the union government removed categories of VIPs from pre-embarkation security checks at the civil airport in the country.
Those exempted are as following:
President, Vice -president, prime minister former president Speaker of lok sabha Chief Justice of India judges of Supreme Court union minister of cabinet rank governor of States.
Government of union territories chief minister of States and union territories Ambassador of foreign countries High commissioners and their spouse cabinet secretary visiting foreign dignitaries of the equal status. All others are subject to pre-embarkation security checks.
The Registrar General of Rajasthan high court addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Union Government in the Ministry of civil aviation on 16th September 2002. While advertising to the circular the letter said that chief justice of Rajasthan High Court travels often by air between jodhpur and Jaipur in connection with his official duties and was being inconvenienced by not being removed from pre-embarkation security checks. The registrar general drew attention to the warrant of precedents.
Issues:
Does section 5(e) of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and rule 8 (a) of the Aircraft rules, 1957 infringes the constitution of India?
Judgement:
By not including the Chief Justice and the judges of the high court in the lists of the persons removed from pre-embarkation security checks, the Department of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs failed to maintain the status of the Chief Justice and the judges of the High court.
The rationale which the high court indicated was that:
"Circular of exemption also makes the people that believe that pre-boarding frisking of Chief Justices and judges of High court is very necessary for a view of ever-increasing terrorist threat perception.
The High court showed that given the threat perception all VIPs should submit themselves to pre-embarkation security checks " without executing their ego" but if certain persons amongst them were to be exempted then all the constitutional work should be treated at par.
The union government is in appeal. The high court has transgressed the "wise and self-imposed." restraints on the power of judicial review by writing the writ petition and issuing these directions the cause for invoking its jurisdiction suo motto was a news report regarding a breach of security at Sanganer airport.
A suo moto exercise of nature embarked upon by the high court encroaches upon the domain of the executive. In a democracy based on rule of law, the government is accountable to the legislature and through it to the people.
The record of the transfer petition indicates that the high court in the course of special Appeal has made the certain observation while issuing the notice to the director-general of the Bureau of Civil Aviation security.
Since the high court had made the observations in a matter which is not related to the issue involved in the special appeal.
The high court shall dispose and proceed to hear and dispose of special appeal accordingly.
Document:
