The Delhi High Court has ordered setting up of an expert committee to look into the issue of denying litigants entry to court rooms due to absence of identity proof.
The court noted that such a restriction was a barrier to access to justice and said the issue deserved priority and judicial and administrative attention.
Observing that security measures were inextricably connected with disaster concerns, Justice Gita Mittal said a comprehensive evaluation and action plan is required on priority basis and directed setting up of an expert committee under the Chairmanship of Principal District Judge.
“Denying entry to a litigant to the court premises is barrier to access to justice,” Justice Mittal said, adding the panel will include experts from Home Ministry, Intelligence Bureau, National Investigating Agency, Central Industrial Security Force, Delhi Police and other security agencies as its members.
“Such obstacles that prevent the economically weak from accessing courts could effectively reduce court proceedings to de facto in camera proceedings. Barring the public from courtrooms is thus a clear violation of the open court principle. Moreover, stringent identification documentation requirements disproportionately affect the ability of the poor and economically weaker section to access courts,” she said.
In her order, Justice Mittal directed Registrar General of Delhi High Court to co-ordinate with committee members and said, “An expert to be nominated by Union Home Secretary, an expert to be nominated by the Director General of IB, an expert to be nominated by Director General of NIA, an expert to be nominated by Director General, CISF, an expert to be nominated by Delhi Police Commissioner and also an expert to be nominated by National Institute of Disaster Management.”
As per the order, the district judges of all trial courts have been included in the panel and May 16 has been fixed for the committee to hold its first meeting.
Justice Mittal passed the order while hearing a matrimonial dispute in which the husband challenged the lower court’s order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and three children. During the course of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel had made a submission that his client was denied entry to the court room as he did not have documentary proof of identification which is being imposed as a security requirement.
“There is no considered policy at all on court security as is manifested from the instructions. The security instructions placed before us do not reflect a consideration by the experts noticed above. As the issue is directly concerned with security of a public building, the matter requires inputs from experts who could still recommend the same measures,” Justice Mittal said.