Supreme Court Mandates CCTV in Police Stations and Central Agencies: Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2 December 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2020

Citation: (Not Available in Source)

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., K.M. Joseph, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can the police be held more accountable for their actions within the confines of a police station? The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark judgment, addressed the critical need for transparency and accountability within police stations and central investigation agencies. This case mandates the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and video recording capabilities in all police stations and offices of central agencies that conduct interrogations. The judgment aims to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench comprised Justices R.F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The Supreme Court, in its earlier order in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311, had directed the establishment of a Central Oversight Body (COB) by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the use of videography at crime scenes. The Court also emphasized the need for an oversight mechanism in every state to review CCTV footage and publish periodic reports. This was a follow-up to the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, which dealt with custodial violence. The COB was tasked with issuing instructions to ensure the phased implementation of videography, starting from 15 July 2018.

Following these directions, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the COB on 9 May 2018 to oversee the implementation of photography and videography at crime scenes by state and union territory governments and central agencies. The COB was also tasked with exploring the possibility of a central server for videography and issuing directions to ensure the phased implementation of videography.

In the present case, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 16 July 2020, regarding audio-video recordings of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), as well as the broader issue of CCTV camera installation in police stations. Subsequently, on 16 September 2020, all states and union territories were impleaded to ascertain the status of CCTV cameras in police stations and the constitution of oversight committees.

The Court noted that many compliance affidavits and action taken reports filed by the States and Union Territories lacked crucial details regarding the number of CCTV cameras installed, their positioning, working condition, recording capacity, and the constitution of oversight committees.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s judgment is primarily based on the need to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court also referred to its previous directions in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others, which highlighted the necessity of videography and oversight mechanisms to prevent custodial violence and ensure transparency in police procedures.

The judgment also refers to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically the proviso to Section 161(3), which deals with audio-video recording of statements. However, the main focus of the judgment is on the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and central investigation agencies.

The Court directed the constitution of State Level Oversight Committees (SLOC) and District Level Oversight Committees (DLOC) to ensure the implementation of its directions. The SLOC is to consist of:

• ✓ The Secretary/Additional Secretary, Home Department
• ✓ Secretary/Additional Secretary, Finance Department
• ✓ The Director General/Inspector General of Police
• ✓ The Chairperson/member of the State Women’s Commission

The DLOC is to consist of:

• ✓ The Divisional Commissioner/Commissioner of Divisions/Regional Commissioner/Revenue Commissioner Division of the District
• ✓ The District Magistrate of the District
• ✓ A Superintendent of Police of that District
• ✓ A mayor of a municipality within the District/a Head of the Zilla Panchayat in rural areas

The duties of the SLOC include the purchase, distribution, and installation of CCTV cameras, budgetary allocation, monitoring maintenance, addressing grievances from DLOC, and calling for monthly reports from the DLOC. The DLOC’s obligations include supervision, maintenance, interacting with the Station House Officer (SHO), sending monthly reports to the SLOC, and reviewing CCTV footage for human rights violations.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court primarily revolved around the need for effective implementation of the Court’s previous orders regarding videography and CCTV surveillance in police stations. The learned Attorney General for India, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, and the learned Amicus Curiae, along with the counsels for the intervenor and the respective States and Union Territories, presented their submissions.

The main points of contention were:

• ✓ The lack of compliance by the States and Union Territories with the previous directions of the Court.
• ✓ The absence of detailed information regarding the installation, positioning, and working condition of CCTV cameras in police stations.
• ✓ The need for a robust oversight mechanism to ensure the effective functioning of CCTV cameras and to prevent human rights violations.
• ✓ The requirement for audio-video recording of statements under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The arguments were not presented as specific submissions by different parties, but rather as a collective concern about the lack of implementation and the need for more stringent measures. The Court took note of the fact that the compliance affidavits filed by the States and Union Territories were largely deficient and lacked crucial details. This highlighted the necessity for more concrete directions and a more robust oversight mechanism.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the following issues were implicitly addressed by the Court based on the arguments and the context of the case:

1. What are the necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the Court’s previous directions regarding videography in crime scenes and CCTV surveillance in police stations?
2. What should be the composition and duties of the oversight committees at the State and District levels to ensure proper functioning of CCTV cameras and to prevent human rights violations?
3. What are the specific requirements for CCTV camera installation in police stations, including positioning, recording capacity, and storage of footage?
4. How should the recording of statements under Section 161 of the CrPC be implemented, and should audio-video recording be made mandatory?
5. What measures should be taken to ensure the accountability of police personnel in case of non-compliance with the directions of the Court?
6. How to ensure the availability of adequate funds for the purchase, installation and maintenance of the CCTV cameras?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a comprehensive set of directions aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in police stations and central investigation agencies. The Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and video recording capabilities in all police stations and offices of central agencies that conduct interrogations. The Court also directed the constitution of oversight committees at the State and District levels to monitor the functioning of CCTV cameras and to address human rights violations.

Authorities viewed by the Court:

The Court relied on the directions given in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311 to set up a Central Oversight Body (COB) and implement videography at crime scenes. The Court also referred to D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744 to emphasize the need for oversight mechanisms to prevent custodial violence. The Court also considered the proviso to Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for audio-video recording of statements, although the judgment did not explicitly mandate it. The Court emphasized that its directions were in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in police procedures and the need to prevent custodial violence and human rights violations. The Court was also influenced by the lack of compliance by the States and Union Territories with its previous directions regarding videography and CCTV surveillance. The Court also took note of the fact that the compliance affidavits filed by the States and Union Territories were largely deficient and lacked crucial details.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to ensure that the police and other investigative agencies are held accountable for their actions and that there is a mechanism in place to address human rights violations. The Court also emphasized the importance of technology in promoting transparency and accountability.

The Court considered various alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and promoting transparency and accountability. The Court’s final decision was based on the need to create a robust mechanism for monitoring police behavior and preventing human rights violations.

The Court stated: “Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years since our first Order dated 03.04.2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.”

The Court also stated: “The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning in the respective State and /or Union Territory.”

The Court further stated: “CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ CCTV cameras with audio and video recording capabilities are mandatory in all police stations and offices of central agencies that conduct interrogations.
• ✓ CCTV cameras must be installed at all entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, and other key locations in police stations.
• ✓ The State Level Oversight Committees (SLOC) and District Level Oversight Committees (DLOC) are to be constituted to monitor the functioning of CCTV cameras and to address human rights violations.
• ✓ The Station House Officer (SHO) is responsible for the working, maintenance, and recording of CCTV cameras.
• ✓ CCTV footage must be preserved for a minimum period of 18 months, with a review of equipment to store data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially available in the market.
• ✓ Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts can summon CCTV footage in cases of alleged human rights violations.

The judgment has the potential to significantly impact police procedures and to promote transparency and accountability. It also has the potential to reduce custodial violence and human rights violations. The judgment may also lead to increased public confidence in the police and other investigative agencies.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• ✓ The Executive, Administrative, and Police authorities are to implement the order in letter and spirit as soon as possible.
• ✓ Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/Union Territory giving the Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance.
• ✓ The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station.
• ✓ CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.
• ✓ The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station concerned.
• ✓ The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that CCTV cameras with audio and video recording capabilities are mandatory in all police stations and offices of central agencies that conduct interrogations, and that the State and District level oversight committees are to be constituted to oversee the implementation of this direction. This judgment reinforces the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in police procedures. This judgment does not overrule any previous positions of law, but it builds upon the principles established in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others. It also provides specific directions for the implementation of these principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others is a landmark decision that mandates the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and video recording capabilities in all police stations and offices of central agencies that conduct interrogations. The Court also directed the constitution of oversight committees at the State and District levels to monitor the functioning of CCTV cameras and to address human rights violations. This judgment is a significant step towards ensuring transparency and accountability in police procedures and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. The judgment reinforces the principles established in previous cases and provides specific directions for their implementation.