CCTV must be installed in entire police stations: Punjab & Haryana High Court

 on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 Kaushal v. State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai Sr. Advocate with Mr. Paras Talwar Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Anand APP for respondent no.3. Mr. Manreet Singh Nagra AAG Punjab. Mr. Neeraj Poswal AAG Haryana. Case heard by way of video conferencing. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents no.1 to 3 with a prayer that whenever the petitioner is sought to be taken for interrogation in any case a videography be done of his leaving the jail premises till his reaching the concerned police station and during interrogation a videography be also done. It is further prayed that during interrogation his medical examination be also got conducted through a board of doctors or through a civil hospital so that if any torture is done to him’ then it can be revealed through the said medical examination with a further prayer made that when he is to be taken outside jail on remand then either his family members or his lawyer be informed of the location with his lawyer to be permitted to be present there where he is being taken and appropriate security be also provided so that he may not be killed in a fake encounter. It is further prayed that respondents no.1 to 3 be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 31 of the Prisons Act 1894. A detailed order had been passed by this court on 03.12.2021 directing the DGPs of Punjab and Haryana to file affidavits in response to the observations made in that order in reply to which both the DGP Punjab on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 2 and the DGP Haryana have filed affidavits both dated 06.01.2022 which are ordered to be taken on record. The affidavit earlier filed by the SSP Chandigarh dated 26.10.2021 which is now on the case file is also ordered to be taken on record. Before proceeding further what has been contended by the petitioner in paragraph 22 of the petition is again being reproduced in this order which is as follows: 22. That the incidents that are happening with the petitioner inside the jail and during remand are as follows: i) The investigating agency spits on the floor and asks the petitioner to lick it and if the petitioner refuses to do so then he is forcible made to lick the spit of the police officers. ii) The investigating officers urinates on the face and on the body of the petitioner after removing his clothes. iii) The petitioner is made to be naked throughout the remand and given merciless beatings. iv) Sharp objects are inserted in the private parts of the petitioner. v) The petitioner is given electric shocks behind is ears and on his private parts so that he is tortured badly and even signs of said torture are not openly visible to the ld. Magistrate as well as medical officer. vi) His legs are put in wooden logs and then pulled aside thereby causing damage to his muscle and rollers are rolled over his thighs so that the petitioner feels the worst kind of pain and still there is no visible mark of injury. vii) The petitioner legs are tied with a rope and he is hanged with his head down and this is repeated every day while in police remand.” As regards the allegations of absolute inhuman treatment as on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 3 made in the aforesaid paragraph as expected the allegations have been completely denied by both the DGPs with is also stated that no such allegation was ever made earlier by the petitioner and that therefore the petitioner has only made the allegations with mala fide intentions. As regards video recording of investigation of the interrogation process the DGP Haryana has stated that there is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. for conducting investigation under surveillance of CCTV cameras. The DGP Punjab is conspicuously silent in his affidavit on that aspect. Though as regards installation of video cameras in all police stations as pointed out by the learned State counsel in the affidavit of the DIGHaryana dated 02.12.2021 it has already been stated that CCTV cameras are installed in all entry and exit gates of prisons and all police stationsit is to be noticed that such cameras were also installed by both the States on directions issued by the Supreme Court and this court with Mr. Ghai again pointing today to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others1 SCC 184 which read as follows: “16. 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. Further in order to ensure that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered it is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all entry and exit points main gate of the police station all lock ups all corridors on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 4 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 outsidewashrooms toilets Duty Officer’s room back part of the police station etc. 17. CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in which there is either no electricity and or internet it shall be the duty of the States Union Territories to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity including solar wind power. 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. 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. It is also made clear that this will be reviewed by all the States so as to purchase equipment which is able to store the data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially available in the market. The affidavit of compliance to be filed by all States and Union Territories and Central Government shall clearly indicate that the best equipment available as of date has been purchased. 18. Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and or custodial deaths it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission which is then to utilise its powers more particularly under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 for redressal of such complaints but also to Human Rights Courts which must then be set up in each District of every State Union Territory under Section 30 of the on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 5 aforesaid Act. The Commission 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. Hence with the directions issued by the Supreme Court also being to the extent that cameras be installed at not just entry and exit points and main gates of police stations but also in all lock ups corridors lobby and reception areas verandas out houses rooms of officials outside the lock up rooms station hall and in front of the police station compound as also outside washrooms and toilets the obvious implication is that no part of the police stations would be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance. Naturally therefore any interrogation room would also be covered by such directions. Consequently the DGP Haryana the DGP Punjab as also the DGP U.T. Chandigarh are now directed to file affidavits as to whether the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court have been complied with or not and if of course the matter is still being monitored by the Supreme Court any order passed after 02.12.2020 would be brought out in the affidavits to be filed by the DGPs of both the States and the U.T. Chandigarh. It is to be again specifically noticed that the contention of the DGP Haryana to the effect that there is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. would seemingly get completely negated by the aforesaid directions given by the Supreme Court of India with it to be highlighted by this courtthat as per Article on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 6 142 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it and any order or decree so passed would be enforceable throughout the territory of India. Further the law declared by the Supreme Court would be binding on all courts as per Article 141. Consequently and obviously non compliance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Sainis’ case would amount to contempt of Court and this court would naturally also be bound to ensure that the directions issued by the Supreme Court are acatully carried out at ground level by the States and Union Terrotory falling within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence the aforesaid direction to the DGPs. Of course to repeat if the Supreme Court has passed any further order after 02.12.2020 as would grant further time to the States to comply with the directions given on that date or the order issued has been modified in any manner such orders would be brought out very specifically in the replies to be filed by the DGPs. Further it is directed that not just in the case of the present petitioner but in the case of every person who is in police custody or is being taken into police custody all provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 41 B 41 C 41 D and 54 55 and 55 A would be meticulously followed with compliance reports in that regard to be made a part of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. as regards even medical on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 7 examination necessarily to be conducted in terms of Section 55 A thereof. Naturally any non compliance of the said statutory provision would amount to violation of the direction hereby given and any accused would have his her remedy available to him her in respect of violation of any such provisions and the directions given. It is to be again reiterated in this order as was said in the last order that no court is oblivious to the fact that the police faces a very uphill task in dealing with criminals especially hardened criminals and the work done by the police force and any investigating agency is to be highly appreciated in trying to apprehending criminals and actually apprehending them and bringing them to justice yet as per the constitutional scheme and the statutory provisions framed thereunder in India not even the worst criminal can be denied a fair procedure in terms of the statutory provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and any such law in force. Hence violation of such procedure especially leading to violation of human rights even in the case of the worst criminal cannot be ignored by any court. Further it is not an excuse for us in India to take a plea that many other countries are far more advanced than us and therefore there can be no comparison with the methods adopted there in interrogating accused persons here. We are the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world and therefore any such plea taken would only seem to be taken as an excuse to not actually adopt contemporary methods of investigation including on 13 01 109 CRM M 436721 8 interrogation rather than taking shortcuts by using third degrees methods etc. Adjourned to 09.02.2022. To be shown in the urgent motion list. 07.01.2022 vcgarg JUDGE 

Summary: In the instant petition, the petitioner demands protection against inhuman treatment and violation of his fundamental rights while in remand by seeking installation of CCTV inside the police station including interrogation room, was brought before a bench of Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court consisting of Justice Amol Rattan Singh in the matters between Kaushal v. State of Haryana CRM-M -43672 of 2021 decided on 7.1.2022. The facts of the case are the petitioner, Kaushal Chaudhury is a gangster who was brutally  tortured in the interrogation room while in remand and also brought about allegations of human right violations against him in jail. The Petitioners contended that in view of the above facts and circumstances, he seek directions from the court to allow videography of his leaving the jail premises to his reaching the police station, interrogation session,when taken outside jail in the presence of his lawyer and appropriate security in order to prevent fake encounter and also “during interrogation his medical examination be also got conducted through a board of doctors or through a civil hospital, so that if any torture ‘is done to him’, then it can be revealed through the said medical examination.” The Respondents however, completely denied the allegations and contended that there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code to mandate filing affidavits regarding whether directions of Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh &amp; Ors. are being followed. The Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court upheld the importance of using contemporary investigative methods rather than resorting to third-degree tactics. CCTV cameras were ordered to be installed all over the police stations, including the interrogation rooms, as per the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. According to the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh &amp; Ors.,directives no part of a police station can remain hidden to CCTV and the interrogation room should naturally be located within the perimeter.The court also said that India cannot provide the lame excuse that situations in other advanced countries cannot be equated to us and therefore cannot be compared to the methods employed there in interrogating the accused here.The torment of Police dealing with tough criminals was acknowledged but, under the constitutional order and legal provisions, even the worst offender cannot be denied a fair trial following proper procedure.