Uttam’s car hit Anand from behind while he was out for a morning run in Dhanbad.
The High Court Bar Association, through its President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, on Thursday urged the High Court to take note of its own motion of the alleged murder of Additional District Judge Uttam Anand in Dhanbad in Jharkhand while he was outside for a morning jog.
Delivering Urgent Oral Reference to the Panel of Judges DY Chandrachud, MR Shah, Mr. Singh said the crime was an assault on the institution and independence of the judiciary.
CCTV footage, mr. It shows a vehicle suddenly veering off the road and hitting an additional county magistrate from behind along a lonely stretch of road beforetime in the morning of July 28, Singh said. He was found bleeding on the road and taken to hospital, where he was left unidentified for hours. Police finally traced the body following the family filed a missing person complaint. His family, who initially believed the cause of death was a hit-and-run accident, filed a murder complaint following watching the CCTV footage. Mr. Singh said the footage was evidence and should be recorded.
Judge Chandrashod advised Mr. Singh to point out following sending an email to the Chief Justice of India and the Registrar in charge of mentioning the process in court.
Our judicial officers must be protected. If the judiciary is to be self-reliant then we have to step in very sternly.” Singh submitted. Judge Chandrashod asked Mr. Singh to take up this issue with the Chief Justice of India.
Justice Anand’s death comes close in the wake of the July 22 ruling by Justice Chandrashod, which has highlighted the “appalling working conditions” of the local judiciary. The notes in Judge Chandrashod’s judgment relate to an order of the Madhya Pradesh trial judge revealing that he is facing threats in a case relating to a murder case in which the husband of BSP MLA was the main accused.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, highlighted how “judges are targeted merely for defending the right and, unfortunately, are subject to the Supreme Court’s administration of transfers and positions that make them vulnerable,” Justice Chandrachod explained the difficulties subordinate justices confront every day.
The Supreme Court said that “the independence of the judiciary is the independence of every judge.” The ruling also indicated an even greater malaise in applying political pressure to the trial judges.
“Judicial independence of the local judiciary is fundamental to the integrity of the entire system. Courts made up of district judiciary are the first point of contact with citizens. If the citizen’s faith in the administration of justice is to be maintained, the local judiciary must focus attention as well as the ‘superior’ judiciary,” Justice Chandrachod observed.