State's Special Investigation Cells Not Exempt From Installing CCTVs: High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Haryana DGP For Violating SC Judgment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice to Haryana's Director General of Police (DGP) for wilful disobedience of Supreme Court's directions to install CCTV in all police stations including special cells and units where investigation takes place.

The development came after Haryana Government submitted that Supreme Court's direction in Paramvir Singh Saini case was only to install CCTV cameras at Police Stations and not at other places of investigation or interrogation by the Police.

The Haryana govt had said that State would be severely prejudiced in investigation if CCTV is installed in premises of Investigating agency.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said,

"the State cannot be permitted to bypass the guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by preferring to selectively misread and give restricted interpretation to the generic expression used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the constitutional matter and rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While importing the expression of Police Station from the Cr.P.C., an attempt has been made by the respondent-State to curtail the generic expression used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to defeat the intent and object of the judgment."

Court said if the interpretation as given by the State is accepted, "the very object of installation of CCTV cameras can be defeated merely by changing the seat of interrogation and investigation to premises other than the Police Station."

It said that it was not the intention of the Supreme Court to give restricted interpretation to "Police Station". Thus, it held that State Investigating Agencies and special investigation units/ cells or task forces constituted by the State are not exempt from the obligation to comply with the mandate of the judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini (supra).

The Court was hearing a plea seeking directions for constituting a Special Investigation Team to probe an incident, whereby 15 year old minor grandson of the petitioner was allegedly illegally detained and tortured at Panipat's Police Station, for extracting information regarding his father, who has allegedly falsely implicated in a criminal case.

During the course of the hearing, allegations were made by the counsel for the petitioner apprehending destruction of the evidence i.e. the CCTV footage of the alleged incident. Accordingly, the Court had directed the District Judge to conduct a fact finding inquiry into the claim. The Court had also directed the Home Secretary to apprise about the specifications of CCTV cameras to be installed at all places of investigation and premises notified or used by the Haryana Police for such purpose.

In pursuance thereof, State's Additional Chief Secretary submitted that SC direction was only to install the CCTV cameras at Police Stations and not at the places of investigation or interrogation by the Police."

Taking strong exception to this submission, the Court referred to D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (2015) wherein Supreme Court recommended installation of CCTV cameras in Police Stations and Prisons. Haryana government had back then filed its specific affidavit regarding installation of CCTV cameras in all Police Stations, especially at the entrance and the lockups.

Reliance was also placed on Paramvir Singh Saini case, wherein Supreme Court observed that the State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them.

"State has deliberately chosen to resort to a restrictive reading of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has chosen an armour to shield itself from the 'letter' used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment...The law requires no elaboration that the judgments are not to be read as statutes and have to be read in the context in which the same is rendered. The respondent-State has chosen to selectively confine itself to a restricted interpretation of the said judgment by confining to paragraph No.16 and the expression 'Police Station' used therein," added the Court.

Supreme Court Directed To Install CCTV In Central Agencies Including CIA, CBI

The Court said that the interpretation averred by the State is evidently absurd considering that the Supreme Court in Naib Singh Saint's case has directed installation of the CCTV cameras even in the premises of the Central agencies namely, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agencies, Directorate of Enforcement, NCB, DRI, SFIO etc. "which deal with the offences of much higher degree, criminals who pose danger to the sovereignty of the State and have immense resources at their command."

In the light of the above, the Court opined that, "attempt on the part of the respondent- State is per se an attempt at wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the Courts and by the purposive misinterpretation of the mandate. The Officers/Officials are prima facie are in contempt of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Consequently, the Court issued contempt notices to the Director General of Police, Haryana and the then as well as the incumbent Superintendent of Police, Panipat, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not taken against them for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the Supreme Court.

The matter is deferred to July 19, for further consideration.

Mr. Munish Khangwal, Advocate for Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Saini, Addl. A.G. Haryana and Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate, for the respondent No.4-S.P. Panipat with Sh. Varinder Singh, the then Incharge, CIA-II, Panipat in person.