On May 27, 2022, the Delhi High Court sought response of the Delhi Government and city police in a case of Mohd. Arshad Ahmad v/s. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors. [W.P. (Crl) no. 1239 of 2022], as to why CCTV cameras installed there had no audio facility. The Court also observed that the CCTVs were not installed as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v/s. Balijit Singh & Ors.

A Single-judge Bench of Anu Malhotra, while hearing the Petition, sought a status report from the State, and adjourned the matter for next hearing on July 27, 2022. The Court held, “In the circumstances, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall explain as to why the audio footage has not been installed so far and the compliance of the installation of the audio footage in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini (Supra) be placed on record without default by the State for the next date of hearing.”

In the above Supra case, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the CCTVs have essentially to be installed in the Police Stations, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, reception areas, verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s rooms, Sub-Inspector’s rooms, areas outside the lock-up rooms, station hall, in front of the police station compound outside (not inside), washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer’s room, back part of the police station etc and that the said CCTV systems have to be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.

About the Petition

The Petition filed before the Court sought following directions:

a)    Direct the SHO, P.S. Nabi Karim to ensure strict compliance of the final Order and Judgment dated August  1, 2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court by providing adequate Police protection to the Petitioner in the discharge of his official and religious duties as an Imam of Masjid Dargah Hazrat Khwaja Baqi Billah (R.A.) situated at Eidgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi; 

b)   Direct the SHO to secure and preserve forthwith the CCTV footage both Audio and Video of cameras installed inside the Police Station, especially inside the room of the SHO and place on record before this Hon’ble Court pertaining to the incident dated May 01, 2022 between 02.00 P.M to 07.00 P.M, in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment passed in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh & Ors. 

c)    Direct the State to conduct an in-depth enquiry in a fair and impartial manner considering the principles of natural justice under the direct supervision of the DCP Vigilance or by a Police Officer of a higher rank on the incident which occurred inside the room of the SHO. 

d)   Direct the State to take stringent legal action against the private Respondents for brazenly threatening, intimidating and subjecting the Petitioner to inhuman and degrading treatment that too in the presence of the SHO.

Arguments by the Respondent

It was submitted by the State and as well as Police that that there are exaggerated submissions that have been made in the petition, and that there was only an exchange of hot words between the Petitioner and the private Respondents. They further claimed that the SHO had called both the parties to the Police Station to maintain peace and harmony between them on the occasion of Eid-Ul-Fitr.

It was further by the State that the CCTV video footage of the Police Station Nabi Karim has already been preserved. However, the Court was apprised that the audio footage of the day was not available.

Court’s observation

The Court however observed, “It is essential to observe that in view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh & Others in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3543/2020 vide paragraph 16 and 17 thereof, it has been expressly directed that the CCTVs have essentially to be installed in the Police Stations, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, reception areas, verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s rooms, Sub-Inspector’s rooms, areas outside the lock-up rooms, station hall, in front of the police station compound outside (not inside), washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer’s room, back part of the police station etc and that the said CCTV systems have to be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.”

The Court, seeking response of the authorities in the matter on installation of audio footage of CCTV cameras in police stations, adjourned the matter till July 27.

The entire Order may be read here: 

Related:

 CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs

End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

Will CCTV cameras and audio video records help curb police brutality?

The post Delhi HC questions absence of audio in CCTVs at Police Stations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a bid to ensure greater transparency in how the police conduct their operations, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has joined hands with different organisations of lawyers, farmers and workers, and submitted a memorandum to the Assam Police urging for the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations.

CJP joins illustrious organisations such as Forum for Social Harmony, AsomMajuri Sramik Union, All India Kishan Mazdoor Sabhaand some local lawyers in this effort. Together we have written to the Director General of Police (DGP) of Assamhighlighting the Supreme Court’s December 2020 judgement mandating installation of CCTVs in police stations.

In December 2020, Supreme Court mandated installation of CCTVs in police stations, giving specific directions on storage of the information thus collected. It also specified locations in police station where such CCTVs should be installed. In July, the Assam Human Rights Commission took suo moto cognizance of 23 people shot at while in police custody, with five dead, since Chief Minister HimantaBiswaSarma took over on May 10.

In light of this, a memorandum has been sent by lawyers and concerned civil society organisationsto the DGP of Assam, bringing to his attention the judgment passed by the Supreme Court on December 3, 2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (SLP Crl. No. 3543 of 2020) mandating installation of CCTV cameras in police stations.

The signatories of this memo are:

• From Citizens for Justice and Peace: Advocate Abhijeet Chaudhury, Advocate Abdur Rahim, Nanda Ghosh and HabibulBepari

• From Forum for Social Harmony,Assam: Har Kumar Goswami and Shanti Ranjan Mitra

• From AsomMajuri Sramik Union: Mrinal KantiShome andAshit Chakraborty

• From All India Kishan Mazdoor Sabha:  Faruk Laskar andDebajit Choudhary

The memorandum highlights the importance of this judgement as also the importance of CCTVs to be installed as this allows to record the treatment of persons detained and the conduct of such persons as well as of the officials on duty which further allows scrutiny. The memo points out that not only will the installation of CCTVs in police station help and independently assist an inquiry into custodial deaths but will also act as a deterrent for unwarranted and disproportionate use of power by police upon detainees/accused persons.

The court has also directed that compliance reports be submitted by state to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras in each Police Station.

Court’s directions

The specific directions of the Supreme Court are as follows:

• The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station concerned.

• The SHO of a police station is to inform the DLOC if there is any fault with the equipment or malfunctioning of CCTVs and if CCTVs are not functioning, “the concerned SHO shall inform the DLOC of the arrest / interrogations carried out in that police station during the said period and forward the said record to the DLOC”.

• The Director General/Inspector General of Police of each State and Union Territory should issue directions to the person in charge of a Police Station to entrust the SHO of the concerned Police Station with the responsibility of assessing the working condition of the CCTV cameras installed in the police station and also to take corrective action to restore the functioning of all non-functional CCTV cameras.

• The SHO should also be made responsible for CCTV data maintenance, backup of data, fault rectification etc.

The court even specified the specific locations within the police stations where such CCTV are to be installed, including but not limited to:

• all entry and exit points

• main gate of the police station;

• all lock-ups;

• all corridors;

• lobby/the reception area; 

• all verandas/outhouses,

• Inspector’s room; Sub-Inspector’s room;

• areas outside the lock-up room; station hall;

• in front of the police station compound;

• outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets;

• Duty Officer’s room;

• back part of the police station etc.

Additional guidleines pertaining to CCTVs are as follows:

• CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.

• The internet systems that are provided must also be systems which provide clear image resolutions and audio.

• Most important of all is the storage of CCTV camera footage which can be done in digital video recorders and/or network video recorders.

• CCTV cameras must then be installed with such recording systems so that the data that is stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18 months.

IMPORTANT: If the recording equipment, available in the market today, does not have the capacity to keep the recording for 18 months but for a lesser period of time, it shall be mandatory for all States, Union Territories and the Central Government to purchase one which allows storage for the maximum period possible and in any case, not below 1 year.

Once a complaint is made about custodial violence/death, the State Human Rights Commission/Human Rights Court can then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigation agency in order to further process the complaint made to it.

The Supreme Court also said in its order, “It is also required that at the entrance and inside the police stations there is a prominent display that the premises are covered by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language (Assamese, Bengali among others in Assam).”

It further said, “The prominent display outside the police station must also mention that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognisance of an offence.”

Additionally, the SC said, “The display outside the police station shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also made a special note that 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 its first order dated April 3, 2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.

Background of the case

On November 22, 2016, Justice Fateh Deep Singh of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that illegal detention of petitioner’s sons by the Police was a violation of their Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Baljit Singh &Ors vs State of Punjab CRWP No. 1245 of 2016)

In 2020, a Special leave Petition in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (SLP Crl. No. 3543 of 2020)was filed before the top court in pursuance of the same matter, focusing on the larger question of installing CCTVs in police stations. In September 2020, the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, decided to implead all States and Union Territories (UT’s) in the matter to seek their responses on the exact position of installation of CCTV cameras.

The December 2020 judgement in Paramvir Singh casem the bench makes mention of the 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court (Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311), by Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Adarsh Kumar Goel, had directed every State to have an oversight mechanism where an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations.

NCRB figures

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in its reports from 2005 to 2018, revealed that 500 deaths of persons in remand were reported out of which, 281 cases were registered, 54 policemen were charge-sheeted. Interestingly, not a single policeman was convicted during that period. Also, 700 deaths of persons before remand were reported out of which, 312 cases were registered, 132 persons were charge-sheeted and merely 7 persons were convicted during such a long period of 13 years.

In the period between 2014 to 2019, 33 persons (6.1% of the 537 who died in police custody) died due to injuries sustained during custody due to physical assault by police, as per NCRB report. In 2019, two of a total 85 (2.4%) deaths in police custody were attributed to assault by police.

The Supreme Court, in all its wisdom has issued these directives to eventually reduce incidents of custodial violence and deaths which have been notoriously on the rise in the past few years. Sine the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not record incidents of custodial violence, they remain unreported and if such mechanisms of CCTVs are put in place, accountability amongst police officials will increase.

Thus, this memorandum is pertinent in this regard to ensure compliance by Assam Police and to ensure that no incidents of custodial violence and death go unreported and to bring justice to the victims of these crimes by public officials.

The SC judgement may be read here:

The memorandum may be read here:

Related:

Assam: Prime suspect in AASU leader’s lynching dies mysteriously in custody

With CJP’s help, Mojibor Sheikh finally walks out of Assam Detention Centre

Gauhati HC asks Centre and Assam State gov’t to indicate stand on funding for Legal Aid

The post Install CCTVs in police stations: CJP to Assam Police appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has issued directions to all States and Union Territories to comply with its December 2020 order of installing CCTV cameras in all police stations and investigation agencies. Through its order dated March 2, the top court expressed its displeasure as both the Centre and the States/UTs failed to take the matter seriously.

A Bench comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy said, “We reiterate that these are the matters of utmost importance concerning the citizens of this country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

On December 2, 2020, the top court had passed a detailed and specific order directing states and the Centre to take concrete steps towards ensuring that every police station in the country and all investigating agencies have CCTV cameras in their premises. The court had also sought action plan affidavits from all states within 6 weeks to ensure that the States are doing their bit to end custodial torture.

Displeasure at Centre’s excuses

The Supreme Court observed that the Centre has failed to comply with its directions related to installation of CCTV cameras in investigation agencies like Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, National Investigation Agency, etc. The Bench said,

“Paragraph 19 of our order dated 02.12.2020 has not yet been followed. We direct the Union of India to file an affidavit within three weeks from today, stating exactly how much financial outlay is required, and the timeline within which they are going to carry out the directions contained in the second sentence, in particular, of Paragraph 19 of the aforesaid order.”  

When the Union Government tried to seek an adjournment, LiveLaw quoted the Bench saying (to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta), “We are getting a distinct impression that you are dragging your feet. What kind of letter (seeking adjournment) you have circulated?” The Solicitor General replied that adjournment was sought having regard to the “ramifications” of the order.

To this, Justice Nariman reportedly reacted, “What ramifications? We are not concerned about the ramifications. This concerns the rights of the citizens. This concerns the rights of citizenry under Article 21 of the Constitution. We are not accepting the excuses given in the letter.” The Solicitor General, thereafter, requested the Bench to ignore the adjournment letter, reported LiveLaw.

Bench pulls up States/UTs

The Bench then perused the affidavits filed by States and Union Territories and expressed its displeasure at the inadequate action plan. For Haryana, the Bench said that their orders should have been followed in “letter and spirit.”

“Except for stating what the figures of estimated cost are and giving a timeline of 1 ½ years, nothing has been done. We direct the State of Haryana to allocate funds for the purposes mentioned in our orders within a period of four weeks from today”, said the Bench.

The apex court told Telangana to allocate funds for setting up of CCTV cameras in all places in accordance with its December order. “So far as the State of Telangana is concerned, nothing has been done, except to state that the budgetary proposal has been sought from the Commissioner. We direct the State of Telangana to allocate funds for the purposes mentioned in our orders within a period of four weeks from today,” recorded the order.

Dissatisfied with Karnataka’s affidavit, the court noted, “All that is stated is that there is an administrative approval for Rs. 18.5 crores and that Cabinet approval has been sought. No timeline has been given thereafter. The State of Karnataka is refusing to implement our orders in letter as well as in spirit. Therefore, we direct the State of Karnataka to allocate funds for the purposes mentioned in our orders within a period of four weeks from today.”

Similar reactions for Uttar Pradesh were recorded in the order albeit the Supreme Court recognised the fact that it stands apart in size and might take more time to comply with the order because of the high number of police stations. However, the court said, “We still find that the affidavit does not address what exactly we wished for, and the timeline that is stated is too long. Given the above, we, therefore, direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to complete budgetary allocation for all Police Stations within the State within a period of three months from today. So far as the implementation and installation of cameras is concerned, we grant a further period of six months after the budgetary allocation takes place i.e., 9 months from today.”

Thereafter, the court came down heavily on Madhya Pradesh that seemed to have done nothing constructive since December last year. “As far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned, nothing seems to have really been done in implementation of our orders and the State appears to be dragging its feet, stating that it requires till the end of Financial year 2022-2023 for implementation of our orders. Given the fact that Madhya Pradesh is also territorially a very large State, in which there are a large number of Police Stations, therefore, we direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to allocate funds for the purposes mentioned in our orders within a period of four weeks from today.”

The court was “most displeased” with Bihar’s affidavit. The Bench said, “It shows a complete lack of any regard for the citizens’ Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for our orders.”

For other States and UTs like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur, Rajasthan, Andaman, Sikkim, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Ladakh, Nagaland, the court charted out a new timeline for them to file fresh affidavits about budget allocation and installation work.

With respect to Tamil Nadu, the court said, “Things seem to have moved since our last order and time is required till December, 2021 to complete installations and follow other directions in accordance with our order. Given the fact that elections are to be held in the State, we accept the Secretary’s affidavit and direct completion by 31st December, 2021.”

The matter has been listed on April 6, 2021.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations
Will CCTV cameras and audio video records help curb police brutality?
TN custodial death report indicts police, hospital staff and jail authorities
Disarray in Odisha over custodial violence cases

The post CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Central government for delay in complying with the court’s order on installing CCTV cameras in all investigating agencies, including central probe agencies.

On December 2, 2020 the apex court bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, KM Joseph and Aniruddha Bose had directed that apart from police stations, CCTVs should also be installed in other investigating agencies in areas where interrogation and holding of the accused takes place such as:

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA) (iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED) (iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) (v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) (vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) (vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.

The matter was posted for March 2 for informing the court about compliance of the order but the government sought adjournment. Expressing displeasure with the development, Justice Nariman said to SG Tushar Mehta representing the Central government, “We are getting a distinct impression that you are dragging your feet, what kind of letter have you circulated?”

To this, SG Mehta responded that the adjournment was with regards to the ramifications of the order. “What ramifications? We are not concerned about the ramifications,” retorted Justice Nariman. “This concerns the rights of the citizens. This concerns the rights of citizenry under Article 21 of the Constitution. We are not accepting the excuses given in the letter,” he said.

Thereafter, SG Mehta  requested that the bench ignore the adjournment letter and submitted that funds allocation for the CCTVs are to be made by the state government and sought 10 days time to file affidavit regarding the same.

The court has directed states to make budgetary allocations within one month for the purposes of complying with the court directions and to install the CCTVs within four months after that; poll bound states (West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam and the UT of Puducherry) have been given time until the end of the year. The court was displeased with the responses given by states regarding timelines for following the court’s order on CCTVs and other such directions. Further, UP has been given 9 months giving regard to its territorial extent and MP has been given 8 months for the same.

The court’s other directions include setting up of state and district level oversight committees that will be responsible for making sure that these CCTV cameras are procured, installed and function so they can be of use during trial. It further directed the positions at which CCTVs are to be installed and the specifications such as night vision, audio recording with storage of up to 18 months. The court also directed that large posters be put up clearly mentioning that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission and other authorities.

Related:

End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

Delhi HC slams Tihar Jail authorities for alleged murder of undertrial

State liable for the action of police officials in custodial torture: NHRC 

The post Centre delays compliance of CCTVs at probe agencies, SC says it is “dragging its feet” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a remarkable step, Deepak Pareek, the Additional DCP-1, Ludhiana Commissionerate has linked the CCTV cameras installed by private establishments in malls, hospitals, factories, etc. directly on mobile phones of the Station House Officers and on the LED screens at the Police Stations, according to The Tribune.

The live feed of cameras all around the city will now be constantly monitored by police officers and the records will be easily maintainable. The Kotwali and the police division no. 2 became the first two police stations in the city to keep a watch on the live footage of CCTV’s provided by different organisations and establishments.

Deepak Pareek, who took about two months to get the systems installed, spoke to The Tribune saying, “We were looking for a cost-effective and scalable model to use technology as a force multiplier. Today, there is a lot of awareness about the utility of the CCTV cameras and many houses, shops, malls, schools, hospitals, factories and organisations have installed good-quality IP-based CCTV cameras for their security and surveillance purposes. However, these all-CCTV cameras are stand-alone and what was needed was a solution to integrate these so that their footage could be available at the click of a button to the police stations.”

Talking more about the initiative, Pareek elucidated to the media that the police motivated shopkeepers on main roads to share the footage of their CCTV cameras through the internet with their local SHO. An application was made available to all SHOs to integrate the footage of different cameras installed at different locations onto one screen.

Apart from the two police stations, the Ludhiana Police plan to slowly cover all police stations in Zone 1 in order to make camera footage available to SHO’s in all jurisdictions. The top court had recently made the operation of CCTV cameras in police stations and interrogation/investigative agency offices mandatory in all States and Union Territories as a step to end custodial torture.

Related:

End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

TN custodial death report indicts police, hospital staff and jail authorities

The post Ludhiana: All CCTVs in the city directly linked to Police Stations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the ongoing case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh and Ors (S.L.P Crl. No. 3543 of 2020), the Supreme Court’s three Judge Bench (Justices Rohinton Nariman, K.M Joseph and Aniruddha Bose) is considering the installation of CCTVs in all police stations across the country to check State abuse.

This matter before the top court arises from the final order by the Punjab and Haryana Court dealing with illegal detention of the petitioner’s sons.   

Background

On November 22, 2016, Justice Fateh Deep Singh of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that illegal detention of petitioner’s sons by the Police was a violation of their Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Baljit Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab CRWP No. 1245 of 2016)

“From the conduct of the respondent-State through its functionaries, the Police Officials have tortured and criminally assaulted causing indignity to these persons which conduct is cruel and inhumane and, thus, necessitates intervention by this Court”, he said while directing compensation to be paid as a relief to redress to some extent the wrong done to the persons who were illegally detained by the Police.

In 2020, a Special leave Petition was filed before the top court in pursuance of the same matter, focusing on the larger question of installing CCTVs in police stations and audio-video recordings of the statement given to the Police under section 161 (examination of witnesses by the Police) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was done to explore the measures that can be taken to curb police brutality.

On September 16, 2020, the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, decided to implead all States and Union Territories (UT’s) in the matter to seek their responses on the exact position of installation of CCTV cameras. In addition to this they also ordered the states to apprise the court on the compliance with its 2018 order on the status of the constitution of Oversight Committees.

The 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court (Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311), by Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Adarsh Kumar Goel, had directed every State to have an oversight mechanism where an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations.

Intervention Application

People’s Watch and Evidence are two human rights organisations based out of Tamil Nadu, dedicated towards the cause against illegal detentions, custodial torture, rapes, instances of police brutality and assisting survivors in their legal battles. Both organisations/applicants have sought intervention in the matter before the Supreme Court raising pertinent concerns with respect to investigative practices by the Police.

They have placed before the apex court, issues on the legitimacy of audio or video recording of the statements to the police, CCTV cameras, general issues regarding the electronic medium.  

Audio-Video Statements

Section161(3) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives discretion to the police officers to record the statement of a witness by audio-video or other electronic means. The intervenors/applicants have tried to put forth that allowing audio video recordings of statements by the police will give credibility to something that is not admissible in law. All statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3) of the CrPC, whether of an accused or witnesses, cannot be used as evidence in a court of law under section 162 of CrPC.

Section 162 provides that statements made to the police need not be signed by the accused or witness since such statements can only be used to contradict a witness on the stand during cross examination only. These statements can never be used for corroboration or substantial evidence. So, audio video recording it, would be practically giving a stamp akin to a signature to it, and therefore, it would be more appropriate to clarify that such a recording should not be considered to be voluntary any more than statements recorded in writing.

Under general principles of Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused in a court of law. Since this law does not assign credibility to statements made by witnesses or accused, giving legitimacy to audio video recordings serve no purpose to protect detainees from custodial abuse.

For instance, the application states, “If the concern is to protect an accused from custodial abuse, then encouraging an audio-video record is unlikely to serve that purpose because there is nothing to prevent the custodial officers from exercising the worst possible pressure or threats elsewhere, prior to making such a recording, and ensuring that the person nevertheless gives the recording in surroundings which seem sanitized. The very body of the person in custody is in the utter control of the custodial agency.” Psychological threats can have a greater impact than physical abuse.

Another technical issue that may arise, as described by the applicants is that certain portions of the recordings can be conveniently edited by the police which might not suit their narrative. So, if the intention is to preserve the credibility of witnesses and prevent them from deliberately lying, there are enough powers under Section 195 (giving false evidence to get a conviction) of the IPC read with Section 340 (inquiry into section 195 offences) of the CrPC to check such pernicious conduct.

The applicant hence, contends that even granting that witnesses may tend to deviate from their earlier positions for the wrong reasons, it is worth bearing in mind that persons of such flimsy reliability ought not to be trusted with their audio video recorded statements to the police either.

While the 128th Parliamentary Standing Committee noted that the Malimath Committee, in 2003, intention behind providing for audio-video recording of witness statements to the police was to reduce the possibility of witnesses changing their statements at a later stage or turning hostile, it rejected the same on the grounds that such a provision would violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Such sections could be misused by the police.

Article 20(3) stipulates that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In Selvi and Ors vs State of Karnataka (SLP Crl. No. 10 of 2006), the court had held that this Article 20(3) protection against testimonial compulsion not only applies during trial but also during the stage of investigation. It has also been held that the guarantee applies equally to witnesses as it does to the accused; and that the right also protects all forms of testimony – verbal, written and/or non-verbal.

CCTV cameras

These are also not a fruitful solution as sometimes; the camera could be deliberately switched off by the authorities or detained persons/prisoners could be taken to ‘safehouses’ that lack monitoring tools.

SabrangIndia had reported on Justice Rohinton Nariman’s remark when the Bench was informed by the Tamil Nadu counsel that the Tamil Nadu prisons have installed CCTV’s wherever it is important. To this, Justice Rohinton remarked, “Unimportant places are where accused will be thrashed by Police”.  

The organisations have also stated that when a Magistrate is allowed to record a statement of the accused in the presence of his lawyer under section 164 of Cr. PC via audio/video means, putting unprecedented power in the hands of investigative agencies without a lawyer’s presence can be unsafe. Judicial officers do not hold any stake in the investigations, but investigating authorities do. So, to lay undue trust on such recordings by an investigating agency could be detrimental to the rights of the accused.

During the investigation of the brutal custodial violence against the father son duo in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, BBC news had reported that the Judicial Magistrate did not get access to the CCTV footage from the night of the assault as the record was allegedly erased. Placing CCTV cameras can significantly act as a contributing factor to reducing ill treatment but it still lacks assurance. 

Electronic devices

In addition to CCTV cameras, the applicants also share concern over the usage of electronic devices in the police stations amongst other places and as a part of investigative techniques. Evidence seized in an electronic medium like a computer can include personal information, details of professional life, entertainment in addition to the actual evidence required for investigative purposes. Correspondence by way of emails and chats which is an integral aspect of privacy can be exposed which causes a breach.

The application reads, “Given the primacy of privacy and given the Constitutional limits on state power, the seizure of electronic/digital evidence without any guidelines or safeguards is giving the state control of a nature that cannot be constitutionally countenanced.”

In Justice (Retd) Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, a nine-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court reaffirmed the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Part III of the Constitution including Article 21. When it comes to search and seizure of documents or anything necessary for investigation- the following sections guide the procedure.

1)      Courts and the police have power under Section 91 of the CrPC to call for a document or other thing if necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, enquiry or trial.

2)      Section 93 of the CrPC is a provision by which a Court directs a search warrant after considering its justification. It is open to a Court under Section 93(2) to specify the places at which the warrant may be executed.

3)      While investigating a cognizable offence, a police officer does have the power to search under Section 165 of the CrPC, but he is expected to record reasonable grounds for believing that it is something necessary for investigation, which is to be found in “any place”, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief.

Hence, there is a requirement to put on record what it is that is being looked for and where it is expected to be found, although this is often followed in the breach. The term document under section 93 can also mean all documents in a computer. If the term document in Section 93 is to be read in the manner defined under the IT Act, even then it is required that a specific document be named or described.

Likewise, when a phone is seized, it is so much about the person and also his/her contacts, as it has been seen that such contacts are also harassed, therefore, search and seizure powers of electronic/digital devices will have to be civilized, by way of directives from courts, so that they apply to all agencies uniformly.

Such search and seizure have to be shaped by some due process and specificity as to cause, relevance, location, and description and proper guidelines need to be in place.

The well-intentioned Judiciary acknowledges the unwarranted police brutality within the walls of prisons and police stations, aspiring to construct a framework within which such atrocities can be eliminated. But the concentration on infrastructural changes must be diverted to the entrenched systemic flaws. Legislations also need to be narrowed down to specifics in the general interest of everyone involved in the criminal justice system.  

Activist Biswapriya Kanungo suggests that training on human rights and social behaviour must be given priority, as per The New Indian Express reports. Counselling and sensitive training of this executive branch may help in bringing about a more productive change instead of CCTV cameras.

Related:

SC reserves order in plea for CCTVs in all police stations
Disarray in Odisha over custodial violence cases
Why we need public scrutiny for prison monitoring in India

The post Will CCTV cameras and audio video records help curb police brutality? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench comprising Justices Rohinton F. Nariman, KM Joseph and Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court reserved orders in a matter pertaining to the installation of CCTVs in police stations across the country today.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, Amicus Curiae was directed to submit a comprehensive note by November 27 on the questions regarding preservation of CCTV footage for more than 45 days and for the integration of audio in the footage.

While taking cognisance of all State submissions on the issue, Counsel for Tamil Nadu submitted that the State government has installed CCTVs at “all the important areas of police stations.” To this, Justice Rohinton remarked, “Unimportant places are where accused will be thrashed by Police”, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Submissions

The Bench was hearing this matter on CCTV installation in police stations in pursuance of its 2018 order directing CCTV cameras to be fitted in every police station in the country with a view to curb police excess. The court had also asked the top law officer, KK Venugopal to assist the Bench in the same.

On November 24, before the three judge Bench, Siddhartha Dave submitted that 15 States had responded to the notice issued by the Supreme Court and had filed Affidavits on compliance of the directions. Senior Advocate Dave added, “Sikkim has installed two CCTVs in their prisons. Mizoram has installed 147 of them. But nobody has said anything about where they are placed. Boundary wall doesn’t serve purpose”, as per LiveLaw reports.  

Noting that the affidavits lacked uniformity, the Supreme Court Bench said that a clear rule needs to be laid down. “Affidavits have been filed by persons of several stature up through Superintendent of Police, West Bengal has done through commissioner of Home Department. We have to lay down clearly who should file this affidavit.” To this, Amicus Curiae suggested that the Home Secretary of each State could do the needful.

Moving further, Attorney General KK Venugopal made his submissions, “In rural areas, internet needs to be provided as it is needed for the CCTV. States should ensure electricity and the internet is available to these police stations. Questionnaires also need to be circulated to elicit information needed. A helpline to the oversight committee needs to be put in place so that any atrocities being committed can be brought to light immediately.”

The Supreme Court clarified that they are primarily on the installation of the cameras as the court was on the subject of ‘police atrocity’. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for State of West Bengal, then submitted that the Committee could have the Police Commissioner, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. Additionally, in West Bengal, the police stations were equipped with CCTVs and the Committee would be formed to post a discussion with the Chief Minister.

Advocate Nittany Ramakrishnan also submitted that well-known members of the citizenry must also be a part of the oversight committee and not just independent bureaucrats.

Justice Nariman then said, “CCTV camera mechanisms automatically delete anything beyond 45 days. If there is an atrocity, it should be reported immediately and there should be an attempt to preserve the footage. Presence of citizens and NHRC members in the Committee will be taken up in future orders. Now we will lay down the basics.”

During the hearing, Justice Joseph inquired about audio facilities in the footage and the issue of privacy. “If there is no powerful microphone, then the audio won’t be picked up. How do we counter that? Also, CCTV confined to locker-rooms will lead to sports cropping up where abuses will take place. But privacy must also be taken into consideration.”

On the objective of deciding on CCTV with audio facilities, Dave submitted before the Bench that, “We are in the first step of installation. CCTV with audio is more expensive than without and thus states prefer the same.”

The matter is slated to be heard on November 27.

Related:

Disarray in Odisha over custodial violence cases

1700 custodial deaths in a year, yet no anti-torture law!

Kerala: Muslim youth accuse local police of custodial torture

The post SC reserves order in plea for CCTVs in all police stations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has directed Chief Secretaries of all states and Union Territories to submit to the Court information about the exact position of CCTV cameras in police stations as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees.

This direction has come in connection with a special leave petition filed by one Paramvir Singh Saini in appeal against a 2016 judgment passed by High Court Of Punjab & Haryana. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee appointed Senior advocate Siddharth Dave as amicus curiae in this case, in July.

Background

The petition largely addressed issues of audio-video recordings of statements as well as the larger question as to the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations. The bench had thus issued notice to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on July 16.

The bench also referred to the directions passed by the court in a previous case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 5 SCC 311] whereby the court had asked investigating agencies to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime scene and had directed MHA to set up a Central Oversight Body (COB) for further planning and implementation of use of videography while giving the COB the mandate to “issue appropriate directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner and in first phase of implementation by 15th July, 2018 crime scene videography must be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB.”

The court had also stressed upon “need for a further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations.”

During the August 5 hearing, the bench had directed that all affidavits filed in compliance of the directions of the court in Shafhi Mohammad case be placed before this bench for perusal. In the Shafhi Mohammad case, the court had directed the COB to file an affidavit of progress by July 31, 2018.

Court’s directions

On the September 16 hearing, the bench stated that it perused the report submitted by Dave as well as by Union of India and ordered, “we wish to know the exact position as to CCTV cameras in Police Stations as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees”. Accordingly, the bench directed that all States and Union Territories be impleaded and sought from them the following information:

1. What exactly is the position with respect to CCTV cameras fitted in each and every Police Station in the State or Union Territory and

2. What is the position qua constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with our order dated 03.04.2018.

The court issued further warning to all the States, “We also expect the Chief Secretary of the States and Union Territories to take this matter seriously and in right earnest since it involves the fundamental rights of the citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The data to be furnished to this Court positively before the next date of hearing i.e. Tuesday, the 24th November, 2020.”

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

1700 custodial deaths in a year, yet no anti-torture law!
Kerala: Muslim youth accuse local police of custodial torture
SC: Punjab SHO denied pre-arrest bail in custodial torture case
Prevention of torture Bill – the forgotten law

The post SC asks states about CCTV cameras in police stations appeared first on SabrangIndia.