THE EXIGENCY OF CCTV CAMERA IN POLICE STATION CASE COMMENT ON

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI V. BALJIT SINGH AND ORS ( 2021) 1 SCC 184

Abstract

Satyamev Jayate! Or let truth prevail, is the basic underlying principle which forms the
backbone of the Indian Justice delivery system. An arbitrary act therefore, is a direct attack on
aforementioned principle. Therefore every judicial decision as well as every policy measure has
to be taken in such a manner that the truth shall prevail as the end goal of it.

Police brutality and violence and custodial deaths in furtherance of the same are not alien terms
but as a matter of fact, are a reality of the modern society. Every now and then, we see matters
reported in regards to the same. Taking this into consideration, the Hon'ble SC decided in
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Ors. that CCTV cameras have to be installed
mandatorily in police stations and investigation offices for upholding the faith of the people in
the justice delivery system. This paper is an attempt at explaining the concept of police brutality
and custodial deaths and why the installation of CCTV cameras is necessary in such offices to
uphold the facets of natural justice. Moreover, the paper also analyses the aforementioned case
with the necessary facts, issues, law, and analysis. The paper attempts at commenting on the
situation before and after the judgment and how this judgment will be considered to be a
landmark in the years to come.

Keywords: Police Brutality, CCTV Cameras, Natural Justice, Police Stations, Investigation
Agencies.

Introduction

Police brutality and extrajudicial killings are terms which no one is alien to. We see cases being
reported on a daily basis, where a Police official has taken law into his own hands and an
arbitrary manner. The SC and other state HCs keeps on giving adequate directions which seem to
be backed by justice but what happens behind closed doors of a police station is somewhat the
reality of the modern world. Therefore, the need for the installation of CCTV cameras in the
police stations comes down as the need of the hour. However, an argument can never be one
dimensional and always has another approach as well which in this case is the argument of
CCTV cameras with audio recordings being a threat to secret data and national security.

As per the data of NCRB, from 2001 to 2018, the conviction rate for custodial deaths in India
was of only 26 policemen whereas 1727 such deaths had occurred. Only 4.3 percent of the 70
deaths that occurred in 2018 were attributed to injuries during custody due to assault that the
police committed. Keeping the case of custodial deaths aside, more than 2000 cases of violation
of human rights were recorded against the police from 2000 to 2018 out of which only 344
policemen had been convicted. India is not a signatory to UN Convention Against Torture that
allows states to take concrete steps to avoid torture in any area within their control and prohibits
states from transporting citizens to countries where there is a risk of torture.1

There is no matter of surprise whatsoever in regards to the fact that the centre and most states do
not have information about the installation of CCTVs in police stations. In 2015, the SC had
given direction to the centre, states, and UTs to ensure that installation of CCTVs is done in
police stations as well as other agencies such as CBI, ED, NIA, NCB, etc. This means that it
became necessary for all the agencies having the power to arrest people, to get CCTV cameras
installed.

In December of 2020 this particular direction was reiterated. It had been clear that the directions
were not taken in a serious manner. Both the directions were in consonance with the fact that
several complaints were widespread in regards to the routine intimidation, coercion and torture
of the accused by the investigators.

Six years later than the previous order, the Centre finally replied in support of its lack of
knowledge and informed to the SC that the case needs to be adjourned based upon ramifications.
The bench responded to this by stating that they were not concerned about the ramifications at
all.

While one cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the centre will have justifications like the
integrity and ability of the investigations will be hindered by the installation CCTVs in police
stations or the ubiquitous national security argument may also be cited by the centre, the fact
remains to be clear that installation of CCTV cameras in police stations have instilled confidence
amongst people and the same has a kept a check on the unprofessional behavior of police
officials. Certain countries have laws for installation of body cameras by the policemen in order
to record their body movement as well as response at all point of times.2

Strict invigilation is clearly necessary after people have complained in regards to being abused at
police station, or threatened with insults and caste slurs. It happens quite often that accused and
witnesses are summoned to the aforementioned agencies and are not interrogated but are kept
waiting for long periods instead. Quite a lot of them are coerced to give false statements. If these
actions do not go against the spirit on investigations, then nothing will.

Government has in a squeamish manner installed CCTVs in public places to ensure security of
the public. It will however not be a surprise no-one from the police department knows about the
functioning of these CCTVs. Moreover, no justifications have been properly given by the centre

1
Drishti IAS, CCTV in Police Stations: SC, DRISHTI IAS (April 13, 2021, 5:11 PM),
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/cctv-in-police-stations sc#:~:text=It%20is%20one
%20of%20the,of%20physical%20and%20electronic%20threats.
2
Bimal Jain, SC directed for installation of CCTV systems at police stations and investigation agency offices,
TAXGURU (April 13, 2021, 4:55 PM), https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/supreme-court-directed-installation-cctv-
systems-investigation-agencies-offices-police-stations.html.
about the incidents of police officials deliberately destroying the CCTVs in the national capital.
The same would have been pretty useful in order to solve unethical acts and heinous crimes.3

But there is nothing suggestive of the fact that the rate of crime has come down, which obviously
is backed by socio-economic reasons which definitely cannot be restricted by CCTV cameras.
The government is the one who is swearing by technology and putting people under the scanner
without an iota of doubt, to learn to be under scrutiny. The purpose fully may not be served by
the cameras alone. Production of video statements of the accused and witness prior to and post
the investigation being mandated to the police, will definitely uphold the integrity of
investigations.

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH & ORS.4

Facts of the Case

As per the order dated April 3, 2018 of the Hon’ble SC, in the case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State
of Himachal Pradesh5, the apex court gave direction to Central Oversight Body (COB) set up by
the Ministry of Home Affairs for the implementation of the action plan in regards to the usage of
videography in the scenes of crime during the investigation.

Furthermore, the court, when considered the directions in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal &
Ors.6 opined that a need was felt for further directions that an oversight mechanism is to be
created in every state where the CCTV camera footages can be studied by an independent
committee and a report should be subsequently published im regards to the necessary
information. Appropriate instructions had to be further directed by the COV in regards to the
same. Moreover, the COB was directed by the court to issue directions that were appropriate as
per time in order to ensure the use of videography becoming a reality in a phase wise manner, the
first phase of which had to be implemented 2018 till 15 July.

Various orders had been given by the SC, asking the Government for the submission of
compliance reports of the measures that had been taken. This particular order had asked relevant
inquiries in regards to the status of audio-video recordings of s. 161 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC), 1973 witnesses' statements.

Issue

Affidavits of Compliance and Action Taken Reports had been submitted by 14 states only.
Moreover, failure came for majority of them for disclosing the CCTV camera positions in every
police station. Moreover, the total no. of CCTVs that had been installed, their condition of
3
National Herald, Why all police Stations must have functional CCTV cameras, NATIONAL HERALD (April 13, 2021,
6:11 PM), https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/why-all-police-stations-must-have-functional-cctv-
cameras.
4
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., ( 2021) 1 SCC 184.
5
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311.
6
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 744.
 working and their positioning, etc., were missing from the reports that were submitted. Each state
and UT failed to submit the status of oversight committees. 2.5 years had passed since the order
of the SC and still nothing substantial had been observed.7

Ruling

The SC in this SLP, opined/directed that:

 Any of the two i.e. Principal Secretary of the State or Secretary, Home Department of the
States/UTs of every state has to file Affidavits of Compliance within a period of 6 weeks.
 Both, the state and district needs to have a COC, the State Level Oversight Committee must
comprise of:
i) Home Department’s Secretary/Additional Secretary
ii) Finance Department’s Secretary/Additional Secretary
iii) The DGP or IG of Police Department
iv) State Women Commission’s member or chairperson.

The District Level Oversight Committee needs to have :

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

Revenue Commissioner Division of the Districts;
ii) DM of the District;
iii) SP of the District;
iv) District’s municipality mayor/ Zilla Panchayat head in rural places.
 Duties of SLOC:
i) Carrying out of the directions passed by Hon’ble SC
ii) Purchasing, distributing and installing CCTV and other relevant equipments
iii) Obtaining the budget that has been allocated for the same
iv) Monitoring and maintaining the CCTV and other relevant equipments in a
continuous manner.
v) Address of the grievances and carrying out inspections for the same that have been
received from DLOC
vi) To obtain reports from DLOC on a monthly basis and redress the issues immediately
like faulty equipment.
 DLOC’s Obligations
i) Supervising, maintaining an keeping up with the CCTVs and other relevant
equipments
ii) Maintaining and Monitoring of the CCTVs and other equipments that are allied.
iii) Sending reports to the SLOC on a monthly basis in regards to functioning of CCTV
and other allied equipments

7
Supra Note 3.
 iv) Reviewing of the relevant footage stored in the CCTV in several Police Stations to
invigilate if there is any violation of human rights that might have taken place but
not have been reported at the same time.
 Directions given to the Finance Department of States/UTs for adequate fund allocation at the
earliest.
 For any equipment that is faulty or malfunctioning, report must be given by SHO of each police
station to DLOC and the same has to be replaced immediately. The CCTV's condition of
working and the backup of data must be properly checked by the SHO.
 Prominent display of large posters must be done by every police station and investigative agency
in English, Hindi and vernacular in regards to the coverage of the premises that are concerned by
CCTV. The right to complain for the violation of any human rights to the NHRC, Human Rights
Court, SP of Police, must be included in the information. The passed directions stated that there
must be further inclusion of the rule that the CCTV footage needs to be reserved for 6 months at
least and it was well within the rights of the victim to have the same secured in case of a human
rights violation.
 Declared that it was a matter of necessity that whenever there was a case of force used within the
premises of a police station, and the same results in injuries of severe nature or deaths while
being in custody, person must have the right to seek redressal. Further, the necessity of setting up
Human Rights Court in every district was also recorded.
 The government at the centre had to ensure that CCTVs were installed in a proper manner at
agency offices where interrogations of accused and witnesses takes place. This was inclusive of
CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, etc.
 The footage of the CCTV camera could then be summoned by the court in regards to incidents of
keeping it safe. Availability of this footage has to be then facilitated to an agency of
Investigation to process the complaints that were made further.8
Laws Applied

The aforementioned sections of the Cr.PC have been taken into consideration in the instant case.
Moreover, some necessary legislation like the Human Rights Act, 1993 (precisely s. 17 and 18)
has also been taken into account.

Analysis

It is considered to be one of the most powerful judgments ever delivered by the Hon'ble SC as it
was necessary for the eradication of aspects of custodial torture and the same was necessary in
ensuring that interrogation processes were fair and there is no abuse of power whatsoever.
Moreover, this particular order has been considered to be important because it has been made
applicable to all the investigation agencies and police stations which have the power to arrest and
carry on with interrogations and investigations. This is inclusive of offices of CBI, NIA, ED,
NCB, etc.

8
Supra Note 1
The presence of SLOC and DLOC at different levels, working for the uplifting of the directions
given by the SC and keeping a check over subordinates such as SHO is a necessary move
because it will help in analyzing the situations and keeping the necessary checks and balances in
regards to the same. The presence of both the committees have come down with a set of duties
and obligations which they need to carry out in an adequate manner to uphold the facets of law
and order.

Most importantly, this particular case is an answer to several human rights violation cases. The
order of the SC clearly lays down that whenever a person is subjected to custodial torture or
force or custodial death, he can approach the State Human Rights Commission for seeking
adequate redressal. The SHRC can clearly work in accordance with the powers that have been
conferred to the same under s. 17 and 18 of the Human Rights Act, 1933. Moreover, the once
who accuses such police officer for any such act, is entitled to get the video footage of the CCTV
where the alleged violation has occurred. Moreover a necessary direction to establish more
human rights courts in district has also been given.

The political atmosphere of current times is dominated by a regime that is necessarily

majoritarian and the media is plaint as well, an invincible aura of the leaders has been created
currently as well. Such an aura can be considered to be the force that drives the bypassing
parliamentary procedure as well as the amending laws, be it any specific law, for eg- farm laws,
CAA, GST, RTI, etc. being detrimental to the majority of people who dissent.

Dissent and deliberation can be said to have typecast in a mould that is anti-nationalism. Heinous
charges like sedition, waging of war against India, UAPA, etc. have been faced by such
"dissenters". Other dissident activists that manage non-profit entities that help the poor and
disadvantaged are still hampered by the foreign donation limit. The government, which despises
even mild opposition from activists, journalists, lawyers, and civil society, conducts a witch hunt.

Acknowledgement comes from this judgment of the SC in regards to the implicit fact that there
has to be a rectification of the ills that have been laid down by more dire laws which are in favor
of security of the nation.

This particular judgment is significant because it prioritizes the freedom of an individual as well
as the eradication of torture during police custody which in itself violates the Right to life as well
as Art. 21 of the Constitution of India in an implied manner. The SC has acted in a manner that
can be considered to be pretty swift as well as nips away the issue pertaining to the state excesses
by the enunciation of such guidelines and giving utmost significance to NHRC and SHRC to
work towards the goal of giving an adequate remedy to the aggrieved. The principles of natural
justice are conferred by the same when it has given the complainant, a right to obtain video
footage in order to complaint against the one using any sort of force from the appropriate
authorities.
It has been decried by the court from the 1970s opinion in Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana9
in regards to the 'diabolical recurrence of the torture by police'. The atrocities on human rights by
the officials of police have also been criticized by the court in Prithipal Singh v. State of
Punjab10. Presently, the courts have dealt with arrest in an exhaustive manner and how are they
to be made, with handing of guidelines that are scholarly and made in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar11. The most recent case has been that of Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
12
wherein the prosecution's role had been elucidated as to how he has to carry out investigations
and how application of mind in an independent manner is a requisite for the public prosecutor
while to consider the evidence which are to be presented in front of the court or the witnesses
that have or are to appear before it.

CONCLUSION

As Jst. R. F. Nariman penned this judgment, it became a landmark as it placed rights of an

individual as well as his virtues at a pedestal cannot be deviated and the same is an exemplary
piece of document in order to reclaim the rights of an individual. And the most important matter
is that the sentinel on the qui vive is vigilant and awake as well as not at all daunted or swerved.

Moreover, this particular judgment also is pretty significant for upholding the facets of Art.21 of
the Constitution as in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh13 it had been laid
down that Right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution is inclusive of the Right against
handcuffing, Right against solitary confinement and Right against custodial death.

Moreover, by giving the adequate powers to the NHRC and SHRC as well as the Human Rights
Courts, this case has set an example in upholding the facets of due process and natural justice.
Lastly, to sum up one can definitely say that this particular case is an example and will be used
as a precedent for years to come as well as will be considered a step in the right direction that has
broken the shackles unjust practices that had continued for a significant period.

9
Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana 1980 AIR 1087.
10
Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10.
11
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
12
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC Online SC 317.
13
Unnikrishnana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 2178.