Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta Grants Final Deadline To States/UTs For CCTV’s in Police Station

Strict Deadline Gives Supreme Court Strict Deadline on CCTV installation.

The Supreme Court of India has been very strict on the safety of citizens within the police stations. It is a bench presided over by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta who have shown great displeasure with the developments of different state governments. They have noted that in most of the states and Union Territories, there are no functioning CCTV cameras in the police stations after having been ordered previously. The court has gone to establish a final deadline of December 16 within which all the states should submit their compliance reports.

The judges were angry since the court had ordered installation of cameras to make the system transparent and safeguard human rights. The court observed that the Union government and other states appeared to be taking the instructions of the Supreme Court very casually. This casualness was proved when it was declared that all states had made available the needed information only in eleven. The bench was very plain that no more delays would be accepted in this grave case.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta had issued warnings that in case of failure to submit the affidavits before the new deadline, there will be repercussions. According to them, the senior officials of the state governments would not be spared to appear before the court in person. These are the Principal Secretaries of the Home Department as well as the Directors General of Police of the respective states. The question that the court seeks to know is why its orders are being disobeyed even after the apparent threat to the citizens in custody.

Tuesday hearing has shown that the central government has not filed its compliance report either. The court questioned on why the Union of India was not taking the court proceedings seriously. They pointed out that it is not only about being able to file a paper but real meaning of implementation on the ground. Camera installation is viewed as one of the crucial measures that can prevent police brutality and guarantee that the officers act within the framework of the law during the interrogation.

Increasing Custodial Deaths Case Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The cause of the furor of the court was an alarming news on the deaths in police custody. The bench was reminded of a media report which said that eleven individuals had already died in police custody in the state of Rajasthan alone in the first eight months of the year. The judges referred this case as a blot on the system where no country should tolerate such a situation. They wondered how these events can still take place when there is no proper monitoring system.

Justice Sandeep Mehta singled out the Udaipur division in which seven of these deaths happened. The court feels that the cameras would be a powerful deterrence to police violence. When the officers are aware that their actions are recorded, they will be less likely to employ use of third-degree measures or torture suspects. Without cameras, such heinous crimes are not punished since in most cases no one knows what occurred in the lock-up.

The concept of a model state was also discussed at the hearing by the bench to demonstrate that compliance can be achieved. They applauded how the state of Madhya Pradesh had done so. Madhya Pradesh is said to have a central command center in all police stations. This has enabled real time monitoring and also has ensured that the cameras installed are not mere showpieces but indeed operational. The judges inquired why other states particularly the developed ones like Kerala were trailing behind in this initiative.

The problem of custodial torture is not new but the court is of the view that the administration is not doing enough to prevent it. The judges added that life and dignity of a person are certainly basic rights that police may not infringe on them. These rights are supposed to be safeguarded by installing CCTVs which is a constitutional requirement. The active role taken by the court in this suo motu case indicates that they are committed to stop the culture of impunity in the police stations.

The information of the Paramvir Singh Saini Judgment and Requirements.

The existing orders are founded on a landmark judgment issued in 2020 in regard to the case of Paramvir Singh Saini. In that instance, the Supreme Court provided a very strict set of rules regarding the installation of CCTVs. The court had ordered that the police station needed cameras in all sections of the station and not only at the entrance. This involves the lock-ups, corridors, the reception areas, the rooms of the inspector and even the space outside the washrooms.

The technical specifications of these cameras to make them operational were also outlined in the 2020 judgment. The cameras should also be fitted with night vision that will enable them to capture even during the dark. They should also be in a position to capture audio and video records. This is essential since verbal abuse and screams of pain are usually involved in custodial torture. The video footage may not be able to give the complete story of what a detainee went through without audio.

The other demand of the court is the manner of storage of the footage recorded. The police offices must store the recordings at least of eighteen months. This will be to make sure that in case a complain is lodged months later, the evidence will still be there. It had also been directed by the court that Oversight Committees at state and district levels should be formed. Such committees have the mandate of ensuring the cameras are functional and that the footage is not being interfered with.

This court had also ordered that these rules be available in other central investigation agencies. Cameras should as well be installed in agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation, the National Investigation Agency and the Enforcement Directorate. These agencies can also arrest and question individuals; hence, they are not immune to the regulations. The court attempts to address all the places where a citizen is held in custody and communicates with the police officers.