Bombay High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL Over Amravati Judicial Residence Burglaries
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of a series of coordinated burglaries targeting the homes of judges and judicial staff in Amravati. This decisive action, taken on Tuesday, underscores mounting concerns over the security of sensitive institutional premises and the safety of court officials.
Court Acts on Media Report, Appoints Amicus Curiae
The court's intervention was prompted by a Times of India report published on February 16, 2026, titled 'Thieves target homes of judges and court employees in Amravati'. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode appointed advocate Ved Deshpande as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. The bench directed that all relevant documents be furnished to facilitate the filing of a formal petition under applicable rules, with the case scheduled for further hearing on April 8, 2026.
Details of the Coordinated Burglary Spree
According to the report, the incidents occurred past midnight on February 15 in Amravati's Kanta Nagar area. Unidentified intruders broke into a total of nine houses:
- Five residences belonging to judges
- Four homes of judicial staff
The thefts were executed across multiple residential clusters, demonstrating a coordinated pattern:
- Naldamayanti Colony, Shahapur, and Painganga – housing judges
- Suvarnrekha and Sharayu – where three judges' homes were targeted
- Painganga building – where two additional residences were breached
- A nearby residential block – where four staff quarters were broken into
Investigation and Security Concerns
Police officials investigating the case have recovered CCTV footage capturing images of suspected individuals, which is currently being examined as part of the ongoing investigation. The High Court bench, taking note of the seriousness of the incident, observed that it involved "a very serious issue as regards security of the premises of the judicial officers and court employees." This statement highlights the broader implications for institutional security and the need for robust protective measures for those serving in the judiciary.
The court's decision to order the registration of a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) reflects the gravity of the situation and the judicial system's proactive stance in addressing security lapses that could undermine the administration of justice.
