Judgment : K. CHANDRU, J. We have heard Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondents and have perused the records. 2. The circumstances that led this Court to take up the present writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The Registrar-General of this Court, by a letter dated 13.8.2006, addressed the second respondent about certain incidents that had taken place inside the Court premises, which had a bearing on the life and liberty of citizens, who are approaching the Court and drew his attention to the need to maintain the level of security which the campus requires, considering the nature of duties discharged by this Court. The second respondent was also impressed with the need to provide not only adequate security but also to maintain the level of security without any dilution, either of its strength or of its responsibilities. 3. Apparently, this letter was forwarded to the fourth respondent to send a reply to this Court and referring to the said letter, the fourth respondent sent a reply dated 17.8.2006 stating that despite the number of vacancies in the constabulary, the actual strength provided to the Court has been maintained by drawing force from outside and necessary instructions have been issued to the subordinates not to disturb the strength of the personnel allotted to the duties in the High Court premises. Not satisfied with this, the Registrar-General sent a reply dated 29.12.2006 stating that the actual strength provided to the High Court duty are not being maintained and on many occasions, they have been sent for outside duties by the Superior Officers and even with the strength allotted, as many as 40 personnel are deputed to the offices of the Advocates-General, Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders. It was also brought to the notice that the strength provided to the High Court should be restored forthwith and the Police personnel deputed for duty inside the High Court campus should not be diverted by anyone, for which there was no reply from the fourth respondent. 4. In the meanwhile, a Special Committee headed by the Honourable Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, as its Chairman, constituted for the purpose of proper maintenance of the High Court campus, convened a meeting on 17.12.2006. The Assistant Commissioner of Police in-charge of the High Court campus also attended the said meeting along with another Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic - North). In the meanwhile, a Special Committee headed by the Honourable Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, as its Chairman, constituted for the purpose of proper maintenance of the High Court campus, convened a meeting on 17.12.2006. The Assistant Commissioner of Police in-charge of the High Court campus also attended the said meeting along with another Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic - North). These two officers informed the Committee that they will display the entire strength of the Police personnel allotted to the High Court everyday before the Deputy Registrar (Personnel & Administration) and their full attendance will be ensured. It was also informed that surprise checks can be carried out by the Officers of the High Court to ascertain their actual presence in the High Court. The Special Committee, apart from identifying various locations and entrances in which the policemen are to be deployed on a routine roster, informed the High Court that the strength of the Police personnel had to be maintained and that the personnel deputed exclusively for the High Court are not to be deputed to any other duty, except by getting a prior permission from the High Court. 5. The Committee which also met on 20.1.2007 felt that since the prescribed strength of the Police personnel are not being maintained, necessary communication should be addressed to the third respondent-Director General of Police and that the strength of the Police personnel deputed to the duty of the High Court should be maintained at any cost and they should not be deputed to any other outside work without the prior permission of the High Court. It is under these circumstances and since the issue required urgent attention, the matter was taken up as a writ petition for granting appropriate directions to the authorities concerned. 6. Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, filed a counter affidavit affirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, North, Chennai, dated 2.2.2007. It was stated in the said counter affidavit as to the sanctioned strength, actual strength and the vacancies with reference to categories of local police, women police as well as Armed Reserve Security and the same is extracted below: (a) Local S.No. Particulars Sanctioned Strength Actual Strength Vacancy 1. Assistant Commissioner of Police 1 1 - 2. Inspector of Police 2 2 - 3. Sub-Inspector of Police 7 5 2 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police 1 1 - 2. Inspector of Police 2 2 - 3. Sub-Inspector of Police 7 5 2 4. Other Ranks (SSI/HC/Gr.I/Gr.II PC) 85 87 (sic) 2 (sic) Total 95 95 - (b) Women Wing S.No. Particulars Sanctioned Strength Actual Strength Vacancy 1. Inspector of Police 1 1 - 2. Sub-Inspector of Police 2 1 - 3. Other Ranks (SSI/HC/Gr.I/Gr.II PC) 22 3 19 Total 25 5 20 (c) Armed Reserve Security S.No. Particulars Sanctioned Strength Actual Strength Vacancy 1. Inspector of Police (AR) 1 1 - 2. Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) 2 2 3. Other Ranks (SSI/HC/Gr.I/Gr.II PC) 130 129 - (sic) Total 132 132 - 7. Thus, it has been stated that the total sanctioned strength of the Police personnel comprising of officers and other rank is 252. The third respondent-Commissioner of Police has also sent a D.O. Letter dated 31.1.2007 and assured the Court about their commitment to maintain the total security for the High Court campus, including keeping the entire sanctioned strength. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the letter is extracted below: “ 4. You will also appreciate that even though we have a gigantic vacancy of 2096 Police personnel in Chennai City Police, we have kept the High Court security as the foremost one and maintained the fleet of entire sanctioned strength. 5. It has also been instructed that the Deputy Commissioners of Police, Flower Bazaar and Armed Reserve should not divert the Police personnel allotted for Hon’ble High Court to any other purpose. Further, it has been instructed to give additional requirements apart from the existing strength in case of need for the purpose of security in and around Hon’ble High Court premises. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, High Court Security, is essentially looking after the overall security of the Hon’ble High Court premises with the direct supervision by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police, besides, surprise checks by the Senior Officers.” 8. Apart from the particulars indicated by the respondents 4 and 5, there are still vacancies to be filled up. When asked about the time frame within which the vacancies will be filled up, the learned Government Pleader readily stated that the vacancies will be filled up within a time frame fixed by this Court. Apart from the particulars indicated by the respondents 4 and 5, there are still vacancies to be filled up. When asked about the time frame within which the vacancies will be filled up, the learned Government Pleader readily stated that the vacancies will be filled up within a time frame fixed by this Court. The fifth respondent agreed to in his affidavit that normally the Police personnel who are stationed in the High Court campus, will not be disturbed and after required permission during emergencies and visit by high profiled dignitaries, they may be allowed to withdraw skeleton strength temporarily. However, this Court is not satisfied with the said reply. Therefore, we informed the Government Pleader to direct the fourth respondent to make a statement. Accordingly, in the letter dated 31.1.2007 signed on 1.2.2007, the fourth respondent had stated as follows: “It is also assured that Police personnel meant for High Court security will not be disturbed on the occasions of visits of VVIP etc. and for other outside duties, as desired.” 9. However, with reference to maintaining such a manpower, a request was made by the respondents to provide proper space for constructing an accommodation to keep an outpost for the purpose of monitoring the movements of the Police personnel, who are in such large number. It was also stated that they require a minimum space of 4000 Sq.ft., within the campus and that such accommodation will be provided by the respondents themselves at their own cost and that a suitable place may be earmarked for the said purpose. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request. 10. When asked as to whether there is any sanctioned strength of Police personnel provided for the purpose of guarding the residences of the Honourable Judges of this Court, on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that there is no sanctioned strength specifically earmarked for providing security to the residences of the Honourable Judges of this Court. 11. The Special Committee also made a recommendation with reference to sensitising the Police personnel kept for security duty in the campus in the following lines: “The Police personnel to be sensitised about their nature of work, namely, Traffic control, vigil/security, public guidance with specific reference to Court and its proceedings and to maintain public relationship.” 12. 11. The Special Committee also made a recommendation with reference to sensitising the Police personnel kept for security duty in the campus in the following lines: “The Police personnel to be sensitised about their nature of work, namely, Traffic control, vigil/security, public guidance with specific reference to Court and its proceedings and to maintain public relationship.” 12. It will not be out of place to refer to an interesting article written by a practicing lawyer of this Court, Ms. Swapna, in the Economic and Political Weekly Commentary dated 8.6.2002 to the title “OF GUNS AND POSES - A STUDY OF SECURITY IN COURTS” and the learned writer about the very same Court, wrote as follows: “Special training must be given to a contingent of policemen for crowd control. They must know the plan and layout of each building. On the occurrence of an incident, they must be capable of confining the problem to the particular hall, lobby or floor. They must also be able to contain the crowd in the halls and lobbies and guide them through the most convenient exits.” 13. In view of the above facts and the imperative need to provide security cover to the premises of the High Court and considering that this is a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as it is housed in an ‘Heritage Building’ and that it also attracts thousands of visitors everyday, it has become necessary to issue the following directions to the respondents: • (i) The respondents are directed to maintain the sanctioned strength of 252 Police personnel comprising of officers and other rank as provided in the tabular column above (para 6) at all times and also to fill up the existing vacancies within a period of four weeks from today. • (ii) The Registrar-General of the High Court will indicate a suitable place for constructing accommodation for locating the Police outpost within the High Court campus to the respondents, who will construct a building at their own costs with a built-up up area of 4000 Sq.ft., comprising of ground floor and first floor. • (ii) The Registrar-General of the High Court will indicate a suitable place for constructing accommodation for locating the Police outpost within the High Court campus to the respondents, who will construct a building at their own costs with a built-up up area of 4000 Sq.ft., comprising of ground floor and first floor. • (iii) No personnel, who is coming within the sanctioned strength of 252, comprising of various categories listed above shall be deputed to any other work, except for the work of the High Court and no diversion of the force will be permitted, except with the prior permission of the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court. • (iv) The respondents l and 2 are directed to ascertain the number of Police personnel required for providing security at the residence of the Honourable Judges within a period of four weeks from today and also issue an order sanctioning the said strength and report compliance to this Court regarding the same, within a period of two weeks thereafter. • (v) Adequate training to the Police force deployed as suggested by the Special Committee should be given. 14. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.