Authored By: Akshay Devdatta Malvankar
HVPS law college ghatkopar affiliated with University of Mumbai
Case Citation and Basic Information:
Case No: SLP (Crl.) No. 3543/2020
Judges: Justices R.F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose
Introduction:
Paramvir Singh Saini instituted a case. He approached The Supreme Court of India with a serious concern based on custodial violence and lack of accountability. Paramvir filed the Writ of Mandamus in the nation’s highest court so public authorities could perform their legal or constitutional duties under the direction of the court whose guidelines laid down in the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal were questioned whether followed or not. The nature of the Write was in PIL form.
In this judgment the Supreme Court strengthened safeguards against custodial violence by mandating CCTV installation in police stations and investigative agencies.
III. Facts of the Case:
The case originated for Special leave petition filed in the Supreme court.
It was linked to the SC judgement in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh where videography in crime scene investigations was directed to be used and an impecess was focused on creation of central oversight body (COB) regarding implementation of the required measures.
The petition did highlight the lack of transparency in police functioning and raised questions on the interrogation done by the state machinery which was against the guidelines set by the Hon’ble court.
Even though the directions were given there was lack of implementation on the part of the state and the union territories.
Most of the authorities filed to install CCTV cameras in police station and those installed where they functioning or not was a question which was not answered.
There was no oversight committee made.
When the court when through the compliance affidavits filed by several states the felt incomplete & vague, lacking information on the total number of police stations or number and placement of CCTV cameras, if the cameras were functional and whether footage was recorded and preserved.
Legal Issues:
Should CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations mandatorily.
Is surveillance necessary to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
What mechanism should ensure accountability and monitoring.
Arguments Presented:
5.1 Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments
According to the petitioner the custodial violence, torture, and deaths continue to occurred due to lack of transparency and accountability by the police.
Not following the guidelines of setting the CCTVs in the police station was a act which was violation of the court’s order and the violation of fundamental rights of the citizens which is guaranteed by the constitution by Art 21.[1]
The petitioner provides the case laws of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[2] and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh[3] where guidelines were given regarding the accountability of police.
He emphasised that safeguards and directions were not been met by authorities.
5.2 Respondent’s Arguments
The authorities said that the installation of CCTV cameras were in progress however they faced challenges in the process of installation mainly logistical.
It also involved financial constraints as large-scale installation and data storage was challenging and difficult to achieve in a short time.
Infrastructure limitations as many police stations were in remote or rural places.
Maintenance and operational issues which included continuous functioning and monitoring of CCTV systems.
And it would require significant amount if time for complete implementation.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis:
The judges in the court pointed out that custodial torture and abuse is the direct assault on human dignity & infringement of the fundamental right.
Guidelines in D.K. Basu Case (1997) were: –
Identification of Police Officers
Arrest Memo
Right to Inform Relative/Friend
Information to Police Control Room
Entry in Diary
Right to be Informed
Medical Examination
Periodic Medical Check-up
Copies to Magistrate
Right to Meet Lawyer
Police Control Room Display
Also, the Guidelines in Shafhi Mohammad Case (2018) which were: –
Relaxation of Section 65B Certificate
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Use of Technology in Investigation
Videography of Crime Scenes
Directions to Government Authorities
Role of Courts
It was clear that these guidelines are not followed by the state machinery & monitoring is needed. The use of technology especially CCTV surveillance can play a crucial role was noted by the court.
VII. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
Judgment
After hearing through the case and going through the challenges and arguments give by both the parties the court held that installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative agencies is mandatory.
To protect the rights of the citizens it as an essential safeguard under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It was mentioned that both audio and video recording was to be made mandatory.
This included CCTVs in Offices of central investigative agencies such as the CBI, NIA, and ED.
The cameras had to be put especially in critical areas including entry and exit points, Lock-ups, Interrogation rooms and Corridors within the police station premises.
This CCTV footage must be preserved for a minimum period of 18 months
The Court ordered the establishment of State Level Oversight Committees (SLOC), and District Level Oversight Committees (DLOC)
This Committees would monitor installation, functioning, and maintenance of CCTV systems.
Recognising that if victims have the right to access CCTV footage especially in cases involving allegations of custodial violence or misconduct by police this cases can be reduced.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
CCTV surveillance systems is the adoption of technology and would help safeguards fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
It ensures transparency and accountability in state machinery
Is a preventive mechanism against custodial violence.
Hence, continuous electronic surveillance was recognized as an essential institutional safeguard to protect human dignity.
VIII. Critical Analysis
8.1 Significance of the Decision
Firstly, this ruling is a step forward that will help strengthen the human rights regime.
Secondly, this ruling is built upon the already established safety nets of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
Thirdly, this ruling introduces technology by making use of surveillance cameras in order to ensure accountability and transparency.
Fourthly, this ruling improves the integrity of the evidence used.
Lastly, CCTV footage can be considered as an objective and dependable form of evidence.
8.2 Implications and Impact
The state should ensure the application of modern technology-oriented policing standards.
Matching the methods of investigation with constitutional requirements.
Helps empower the victim and their families
Enhances transparency and accountability.
8.3 Critical Evaluation
Implementation Problem: It will be hard for the states to implement this due to lack of money or management.
Maintenance: Faulty cameras will make this impossible.
Privacy Issue: Continuous surveillance could raise questions of privacy concerning the police force.
Committee: The committee should operate independently for effective checks and balances.
Conclusion
Moving beyond mere constitutional rhetoric, the judgment focuses on the creation of substantive mechanisms for protecting the right to human dignity and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution in places which have traditionally remained shrouded in mystery—police stations and places of custody.[4]
Why is this judgment important? This judgment, however, takes account of an obvious truth: mere rules and regulations would mean little without any form of supervision. The requirement of constant CCTV surveillance, data retention, and the establishment of oversight committees marks an important shift in approach.
This ruling enhances the evidentiary aspect of criminal law. CCTV footage brings into play the element of objectivity as well as contemporaneous recordings, which would minimize the need for contested accounts and increase chances of truth being told when there is a charge of custodial abuse. Not only does it assist the victim but also helps those policemen who are working honestly.
More significantly, this ruling is contributing towards the democratization of policing. Through insistence on transparency and access to information, it attempts to overcome the imbalance between the state power and citizens’ rights. It helps build public trust in the legal process, which is absolutely necessary in a constitutional democracy where rule of law prevails.
In a more fundamental manner, the judgment reveals the recognition of the Supreme Court that technology could be made to work for the Constitution. Used properly, technologies such as CCTV cameras can become tools of protecting rights instead of infringing upon them if there is sufficient protection and supervision attached.[5]
This case shows that rights guaranteed by the constitution must not only be respected on paper but also through effective measures. If this judgment is followed in spirit and in practice, it may go a long way in preventing violence within custody.
Reference(S):
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[2] D K Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 (SC)
[3] Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311 (SC).
[4] Law Commission of India, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008).
[5] Amnesty International India, Denied: Failures in Accountability for Custodial Violence (2020).
