PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI Vs BALJIT SINGH AND Ors (2020)

Advertisements

Article 21, “Right to life and personal liberty,” covers a wide range of human rights as well as the abolition of imprisonment abuse. This decision places a high value on the fundamental right to life.

INTRODUCTION

Our interrogative agencies such as CBI, NIA, NCB, Police Station, etc, are given powers in dealing with people who are connected with any criminal activity. They are responsible for finding out real culprit. But there are a lot of instances where we have seen news like custodial death, or death while interrogation. This shows that how there is a darker side to every bright organisation. A lot times these investigating agencies commit custodial brutality for the mere sake of finding the culprit, due to which a lot of innocent people loose their lives. Because of these instances the court found it very much essential for installing CCTV cameras at various places in the police stations and other interrogation places. This is done to keep a check on the happenings inside an interrogation room, and also to make sure that no brutality is shown to the accused.

BACKGROUND

In the following case, Supreme Court and several courts advised all the police stations and state legislatures for the installation of CCTV cameras. A special leave petition was filed to check whether police stations are equipped with proper surveillance cameras, at every corner. This was done to avoid police abuse while being in police custody. The reported submitted to the sc missed several crucial points such as ,how many CCTV cameras were installed, whether they were capable of recording audio and visuals, if yes then for how many day?, where the cameras were installed, working condition of the cameras, etc. Most of the states  have not filed for recognition as a Central Oversight Body (COB). The Supreme Court guidelines, first announced in the DK Basu case and then again in Shahfi Mohammad vs state of Himachal Pradesh, directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all prisons across the country to prevent violations on prisoners human rights. At the same time, the Court stated that state governments should consider installing such CCTV cameras in police stations to protect prisoners from violence. It was not, however, made necessary. The Supreme Court took note of these cases when hearing a case involving custodial torture in July 2020, and ordered that CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations to monitor human rights abuses, and that those crimes must be recorded as evidence.

ISSUES

1. How much progress is made in the installation of CCTV cameras?
2. Is it binding for the states to comply with Section 161(3) of CrPC?

SECTION APPLIED

Section 161 (3) of CrPC – A police officer has the authority to reduce any statement provided to him during an examination to writing. The Court argued whether any comments made by anyone in police custody are free of coercion, as well as whether all police stations should be installed with CCTV cameras.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – A person in custody who has been subjected to abuse can file a claim with the State Human Rights Commission for compensation. The complainant is entitled to a copy of the CCTV footage from the site where the violation occurred if he or she accuses a police officer or an official from agencies.

Section 21- None maybe deprived of their life or personal freedom other than in accordance with the legal process.

JUDGEMENT

• An oversight committee at State level and district level, to be formed as per the orders of the Supreme court.
•  CCTV cameras should be installed in each and every police station within the state and union territory which should be equipped with night vision and should have audio and video footage. Legislators in the state should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each police station in their area. CCTV cameras should be installed at all entry and exit points, the police headquarters main door, lock-ups, all passageways, meeting rooms, Inspector’s room, Sub Inspector’s room, areas outside the lock-up room, and the station corridor to ensure that no part of the police headquarters is left exposed.  A bench ordered the Centre to “install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of” the CBI, NIA, NCB, according to their judgement.
• The recording system should be set up so that the data is kept for at least 18 months.
• Large posters should be made outside and inside the police stations which has to be in English, Hindi and vernacular language. The poster should inform citizens that they are under CCTV surveillance.
• Allocation of the proper funds should be done by the state and union territory financial department. It was also directed cases related to custodial death should not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission but also to human rights quote which must be set up in each district of every state and union territory.

Conclusion

The judgement brought a tremendous change in protecting the human rights as well as abolition of custodial torture, which is a violation of the Right to Life and personal liberty. Justice R.F. Nariman’s most recent decision represents a great record in restoring human rights.

Article 21, “Right to life and personal liberty,” covers a wide range of human rights as well as the abolition of imprisonment abuse. This decision places a high value on the fundamental right to life. This Supreme Court ruling acknowledges this fact and corrects faults in the most severe legislation, which is supported in the name of national security. By giving the victim a copy of the video footage in which he was subjected to apparent force, the judgement supports natural justice principles.

PROJECT DONE BY

NAME- SHRAVANI GHOSH, COLLEGE- KINGSTON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, SEMESTER- 4^TH SEMESTER intern under legal vidhiya

Admin