Matters of security are not issues of prestige, Supreme Court on exempting HC judges from airport security

The Supreme Court of India has held that High Court judges shall continue to be frisked at airports in accordance with the central government’s procedure, effectively scrapping a decade old judgment that had been delivered by the Rajasthan High Court..The Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao have also cautioned against equating matters of security with ‘status’ or ‘prestige’..The case before the High Court arose from a report that was published in the Rajasthan Patrika, of a breach of security which took place at Sanganer Airport, Jaipur. A passenger carrying live cartridges and a revolver dodged the police and boarded an aircraft headed to Mumbai. The Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the news report and a public interest petition was registered..In the course of arguments, it was revealed that the list of individuals who. were exempted from pre-embarkation security checks included the Chief Justice of India as well as judges of the Supreme Court. On March 26, 2004, this list was enlarged to include Chief Justices of High Courts..However, as noted in the Supreme Court’s judgment, this was not taken into account by the Rajasthan High Court..The Division Bench of the High Court opined,.“In not including the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court In the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks, the Department of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs have failed to maintain the status of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court”..As the judgment notes,.“The High Court indicated that in view of the threat perception all VVIPs/VIPs should submit themselves to pre-embarkation security checks “without exhibiting their egos” but if certain persons amongst them were to be exempted then all constitutional functionaries should be treated at par.”.However, the Apex Court disagreed..In the appeal filed by the Union of India, the Bench noted that the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was an example of a matter where the court should not have entertained in the first place..“The direction to include judges of the High Court was unrelated to the very basis on which the jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked. But that apart, there is a more fundamental reason why the case should not have been entertained and directions of this nature ought not to have been issued. Matters of security are not issues of prestige. They are not matters of ‘status’.”.It also said the high court’s suggestions on framing a National Security Policy went beyond the legitimate domain of judicial review..“Among the factors which are borne in mind is that the person who is exempted from pre-embarkation security checks must, according to the government, be secured by such a level of government security on a 24×7 basis, which would virtually preclude the possibility of any prohibited or dangerous items being introduced on board an aircraft through his or her baggage..…...What we have said above is to emphasise that the view of the Union government is based on a considered assessment of security perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in the manner that the High Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.”.Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand and Rajasthan’s Additional Advocate General, Shamsherry Singh appeared for the Union of India, and Rajasthan respectively..(Read the judgment below)