This article has been written by Hiral Gupta from Amity Law School, Noida

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, instances of police brutality have been observed, wherein individuals facing accusations have been detained in a manner that blatantly violates the rights outlined in Article 21 concerning undertrial prisoners. This period witnessed an increase in custodial violence leading to fatalities. The significant legal precedent addressing this issue is the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh, which emphasizes the protection of human rights for inmates through the obligatory installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and interrogative agencies like The Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigating agency etc. CCTV cameras act as an unbiased witness, recording events in and around police stations. This kind of transparency promotes accountability and discourages the misuse of power. Since, police officers have the knowledge that their actions are being recorded, they are more likely to adhere to the proper norms and ethical conduct. CCTV cameras contribute to the overall security of police stations by monitoring entry and exit points, deterring criminal activities, and aiding in the identification of potential security threats. CCTV cameras inside and outside lock-up areas ensure proper monitoring of detainees, preventing any abuse or mistreatment and safeguarding the rights of individuals in custody.

This case is in continuation to Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal which again are Supreme Court rulings.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the current case, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was lodged to assess the status of CCTV camera installation in police stations and the adherence to Section 161(3) proviso of the CrPC, which mandates the possible recording of statements to the Police through audio-visual electronic means. The Court included all States and Union territories, instructing them to provide specific details on the placement of CCTV cameras in each Police Station within their jurisdiction, along with the status of forming the Oversight Committee.

The Supreme Court has periodically issued directives to prevent custodial violence and restrain the misuse of powers granted to police personnel. In its 2015 judgment in D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all prisons across the country to maintain discipline among inmates and prevent human rights violations. Simultaneously, the Court suggested that State Governments may contemplate installing such CCTV cameras in Police Stations as a precautionary measure against custodial violence, although it was not made mandatory.

In the order dated April 3, 2018, in the leading case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court directed the Government to establish a Central Oversight Body (COB) under the Ministry of Home Affairs to execute an action plan concerning the use of videography in crime scenes during investigations. Emphasizing the need for an Oversight Mechanism in every State, where an Independent Committee can analyse CCTV camera footage and periodically publish observations in the form of a report, the Court aimed to ensure effective monitoring. The COB was tasked with identifying places, particularly Police stations, where cameras should be set up and issuing appropriate directives to ensure the phased implementation of videography.

RELEVANT LAWS

Section 161 (3) of CrPC – States that a police officer may reduce any statement made to him in the course of an examination into writing. The Court raised the issue of whether any comments made by anyone in police custody are free of compulsion, and whether all police stations should be equipped with CCTV cameras.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – A person in detention who has been exposed to abuse or torture can seek reparation from the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). In conjunction with its given powers under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, the SHRC can function in this manner.

If someone accuses a police officer or an official from one of the above-mentioned investigating organizations, the complainant is entitled to a copy of the CCTV footage from the location where the alleged infringement occurred. Such complaints can be handled by SHRCs in line with the legislation. A directive was also issued to establish more human rights courts in districts.

ISSUES

1. To what extent has there been advancement in the implementation of surveillance cameras in police stations?
2. Is the state in compliance with Section 161(3) of the CrPC?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. The individuals representing the petitioners, including various legal professionals and counsel, have approached the court to seek the enforcement and application of videography and photography in crime scene investigations.
2. Drawing on a prior court order dated 03.04.2018 in the case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners refer to the court’s direction to establish a Central Oversight Body (COB) by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the implementation of video recording in crime scene investigations. They argue that adherence to this directive is essential for ensuring transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.
3. Emphasizing the significance of video recording in crime scene investigations and the oversight role of independent committees reviewing CCTV footage, the petitioners assert that these measures are crucial for upholding justice principles and preventing miscarriage of justice. They advocate for the COB to issue appropriate instructions, ensuring the phased implementation of videography, with the initial phase to be executed by a specified date.
4. Noting the establishment of a COB by the Ministry of Home Affairs following the court’s directive, the petitioners argue that the compliance affidavits and action taken reports submitted by states and union territories are insufficient and lack specific details regarding the installation and operation of CCTV cameras in police stations.
5. The petitioners further argue that the formation of oversight committees, as directed by the court, has not been adequately executed by states and union territories. They underscore the necessity of having oversight committees at both state and district levels to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to directives.
6. The installation of CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the mentioned offices of investigative and enforcement agencies is deemed necessary by the petitioners to ensure transparency, accountability, and protection of human rights.
7. They contend that CCTV surveillance will serve as a deterrent against human rights violations during interrogations and arrests, as well as prevent potential abuse of power by officials.
8. The petitioners assert that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, encompassing the right to life and personal liberty, necessitate the implementation of these measures to safeguard the rights of every citizen.
9. They may argue that the delay in implementing such measures, despite a previous court order, indicates a lack of action and a disregard for constitutional rights, emphasizing the urgent need for compliance.

Arguments of the Respondents:

1. The respondents, presumably representing the Union of India and relevant investigative and enforcement agencies, might assert that their existing protocols and procedures are designed to safeguard human rights during interrogations and arrests.
2. They could argue that implementing CCTV cameras in every office poses logistical and financial challenges and may jeopardize the privacy and security of sensitive investigations.
3. The respondents may emphasize that the previous court order did not explicitly mandate the installation of CCTV cameras in all offices, suggesting that the current request exceeds the original ruling’s scope.
4. They might contend that alternative measures, such as internal accountability mechanisms and regular audits, are already in place to address potential human rights violations and ensure the effective operation of these agencies.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court has issued directives concerning the establishment of oversight committees at both the State and district levels, delineating their responsibilities. Additionally, the Court has mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations throughout the state and union territories. These cameras should possess night vision capabilities and capture both audio and video footage. It is the responsibility of state legislators to ensure the installation of CCTV cameras in every police station within their respective jurisdictions. The placement of cameras should cover various areas, including entry and exit points, the main entrance of the police headquarters, lockups, corridors, meeting rooms, inspector’s room, sub-inspector’s room, areas outside the lock-up room, and the station corridor, ensuring comprehensive coverage. Furthermore, the Court has instructed the central government to install CCTV cameras and maintain equipment in the facilities of organizations like the CBI, NIA, and NCB, in accordance with their judgment. The recording system should retain data for a minimum of eighteen months. To inform the public about the surveillance, prominent signage in English, Hindi, and the local language should be displayed both outside and inside the police stations. The financial departments of the state and union territories are responsible for the appropriate allocation of resources. Additionally, the Court has directed that incidents related to custodial deaths should be reported not only to the State Human Rights Commission but also to a human rights organization specified in each district of every state and union territory.

If a victim is subjected to custodial torture or death, the victim has the right to file a complaint with the state human rights commission, which is established under sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as well as Human Rights Courts, which are established under section 30, of the same act. A thorough investigation can be carried out with the help of CCTV cameras and records. Each SHO will be responsible for the operation and recording of CCTV cameras. The SHO would also be in charge of ensuring that the CCTV data was not tampered with. Any faulty CCTV must be reported to the DLOC promptly by the SHO.

DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT

Constitution of Oversight Committee at 2 levels:

1. State Level: The State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC) must consist of:

(i) The Secretary/Additional Secretary, Home Department

(ii) Secretary/ Additional Secretary, Finance Department

(iii) The Director General/Inspector General of Police; and

(iv) The Chairperson/member of the State Women’s Commission.

Duties: It shall be the responsibility of the SLOC to see that the directions of the Court are carried out. Its other enlisted duties will be:

a) Purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and its equipment;

b) Obtaining the budgetary allocation for the same;

c) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;

d) Carrying out inspections and addressing the grievances received from the DLOC; and

e) To call for monthly reports from the DLOC and immediately address any concerns like faulty equipment.

2. District Level: The District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) should comprise of:

i) The Divisional Commissioner/ Commissioner of Divisions/ Regional Commissioner/

Revenue Commissioner Division of the District (by whatever name called) ii) The District Magistrate of the District iii) A Superintendent of Police of that District; and

(iv) A mayor of a municipality within the District a Head of the Zilla Panchayat in rural areas.

Duties: The duties of DLOC shall be:

a) Supervision, maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment

b) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment

c) To interact with the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “SHO”) as to the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs and its equipment; and

d) To send monthly reports to the SLOC about the functioning of CCTVs and allied equipment.

e) To review footage stored from CCTVs in the various Police Stations to check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A Case Analysis of PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH (2020)
2. Case-Study PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH (2020)
3. Case comment-paramvir-singh-saini-
4. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/b8
5. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/b9
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5