IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3543 of 2020
Facts:
The case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors is a legal matter that revolves around the implementation of CCTV cameras, oversight committees, and directives issued by the Supreme Court in India. The case essentially pertains to the use of videography in crime scenes, installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, and the establishment of oversight mechanisms to ensure their effective functioning.
The excerpts you provided earlier seem to outline the directives and orders issued by the Supreme Court regarding the implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of CCTV systems within police stations. These directives aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights by using technology to monitor activities in law enforcement.
In this case, the Court appears to have issued detailed instructions regarding the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, outlining specific areas that need surveillance, defining the responsibilities of various committees at state and district levels, and stressing the importance of maintaining functioning equipment.
The case seems to emphasize the necessity of compliance by state and union territory governments, along with detailed action plans and timelines to ensure the directives are implemented effectively.
As of the information provided, the case seems to be focused on enhancing accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies in India through the use of CCTV cameras and oversight committees, aligning with the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
Issue Raised:
The primary issue revolves around the implementation of directives issued by the Supreme Court for the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations. The court seems to have issued detailed guidelines regarding the installation, placement, and maintenance of these cameras in various areas within police stations.
Contention:
The primary contention might be the alleged non-compliance or insufficient adherence by state and union territory governments in implementing the directives issued by the Supreme Court. This could include arguments about inadequate installation, maintenance, or monitoring of CCTV systems within police stations as per the Court’s orders.
Rationale:
The rationale behind the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors lies in addressing and rectifying certain systemic issues within law enforcement agencies in India, primarily focusing on accountability, transparency, and the protection of human rights.
The case likely aimed to enhance the accountability of law enforcement agencies, particularly police stations, by mandating the installation of CCTV cameras. This measure serves to monitor activities within police stations, ensuring that law enforcement officials act within the bounds of the law and adhere to established procedures during investigations, arrests, and interactions with individuals.
One of the key rationales could be the protection of fundamental rights, especially those guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—rights to life and personal liberty. The installation of CCTV cameras seeks to safeguard individuals in custody, prevent potential abuses, and provide evidence in case of any alleged violations of human rights within police stations.
The rationale might include the promotion of transparency within law enforcement agencies. The installation of CCTV cameras allows for greater transparency in the functioning of police stations, providing an objective record of events and interactions, which can be crucial in investigations and legal proceedings.
The case likely aimed to ensure the implementation of directives issued by the Supreme Court of India. These directives, focusing on the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of CCTV cameras within police stations, were designed to improve the overall functioning and accountability of law enforcement agencies.
The rationale could involve the establishment and effective functioning of oversight committees at state and district levels. These committees are meant to monitor the implementation and functioning of CCTV systems and ensure compliance with the Court’s directives.
Another rationale might involve preventing custodial abuses and ensuring fair treatment of individuals in police custody. The presence of surveillance through CCTV cameras acts as a deterrent against potential misuse of authority and helps in promptly addressing any incidents of misconduct or abuse.
Overall, the rationale behind this case appears to be centered on leveraging technology, specifically CCTV cameras, to enhance accountability, protect human rights, and ensure transparency within law enforcement agencies, thereby fostering a more accountable and rights-conscious policing system.
Top of FormDefects in the Law:
Parties could argue that the directives issued by the Court lack clarity or specificity, making it challenging for implementing authorities to comply, leading to potential legal uncertainties.
Legal defects might involve challenges in enforcing compliance with the directives due to lack of enforcement mechanisms or oversight, leading to difficulties in holding non-compliant parties accountable.
Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation. This Court, while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon. The COB was further directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest.
Challenges might be raised regarding the procedural aspects of the case, such as improper notification or adherence to due process in issuing directives or orders by the Court. This could lead to contentions about the legality of the Court’s instructions.
INFERENCE:
We all know that human right abuse and violation is big issue in the police station across Country.
Landmark case Paramvir singh Saini vs Baljit singh &others
In the Present case of Paramvir case , SLP (Criminal) NO.3543 of 2020, wide Judgement Dated 02/12/2022 it was directed by the S.C. that state level oversight committees and district level oversight committee should be set up to look after the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, their budgetary allocations, continouss, monitoring, inspection, grievance redressal and reviewing of CCTV footage to check for any human right violation that may have occurrence but not reported.
It has been hold that S.H.O. shall liable for duty for the working/Maintenance and Recording of CCTV.
BY,
Ashish Ranjan 2 nd year,
Faculty of Law (University of Delhi)