Suspecting Non-Compliance Of Supreme Court's Order On CCTV Cameras In Police Stations, High Seeks Punjab DGP's Affidavit

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab DGP to file his personal affidavit with regard to installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, in compliance with Supreme Court's order in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.

The Apex Court in Paramveer Singh Saini had directed that CCTV cameras must be installed with a storage period of 18 months.

Stating that there are “reasons to believe” that the directions passed by the Supreme Court have not been complied with by the State of Punjab, Justice N.S. Shekhawat made specific queries to the DGP:

(i) Whether the Oversight Committees have been constituted at State Level as well as the District Levels? The names and designations of the members of Oversight Committees at State Level as well as in each District must be mentioned.

(ii) Whether the CCTV systems have been installed in all the Police Stations, CIA offices, Police Posts in each District. 

iii) Whether the CCTV footage system is equipped with night vision and consist of audio as well as video footage?

(iv) In case of electricity failure, what arrangement has been made in each of the Police Station or Police posts/CIA office for supply of electricity to the CCTV system and nature and capacity of such alternative arrangement?

(v) Whether any provision has been made for recording of the CCTV footage in the central server, which shall be maintained at District as well as the State level?

(vi) The affidavit must specify as to whether the recording equipements are capable of storage of recording of 18 months at least? 

(vii) The number of complaints received from various police stations, police posts, CIA Offices with regard to the fault/malfuntioning of the CCTVs systems, which had already been installed there and the time taken by the DLOC in carrying out the necessary repairs on the said complaint.

(viii) What mechanism has been provided to check the fault/malfunctioning of CCTV system? Whether any periodical inspections have been conducted? Whether any record is maintained at District level (DLOC) in this regard?

The development came after an accused in a NDPS case moved a bail plea while also seeking directions to handover his case to an independent agency. The accused persons were booked under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

While hearing the pleas, the Court noted that the accused persons had moved an application before the Special Court, Kapurthala to direct the SHO, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala to preserve the video clips/photographs pertaining to the accused as they had been wrongly arrested.

Ultimately, the said application was allowed by the Special Court.  However, it was admitted that the CCTV Camera recordings and the video clips of the entry and exit points of Police Station, as well as of police lockup of Police Station pertaining to the time period stated were not preserved by the SHO, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi.

"SHO, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi had not only violated the order passed by the Special Court, but had also violated the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and others”, 2021(1) SCC 184; 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 64," the Court was constrained to observe.

Previously, the Court had directed the SSP to furnish details with respect to back-up policy adopted by the Department for storing CCTV footage data and centralized server, wherein CCTV footage qua the cameras installed in Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi were stored and also to spell out the modalities to retrieve the same.

Thereafter it was submitted that in the affidavit that the NVR and hard disk were examined on December 27, in CFSL Chandigarh, however, no data/deleted data of the relevant time period could be retrieved. 

Amicus Cauriae in the matter had submitted that as per status report submitted by DSP, Sub-Division Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala it has been admitted by him that at the time of registration of the FIR i.e. 20.06.2022, the CCTV footage of police station was preserved for 15 days, however, at present, the CCTV footage was being preserved for one month.

Justice Shekhawat observed that, "it is apparent that there are serious lapses not only on the part of the SHO, but also on the part of the District level Oversight Committee as well."

While granting interim-bail to the petitioners, the Court has listed the matter for February 29.

Appearance: Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in all petitions).

P.S.Sekhon, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.

Case Title: SHEELO VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read/download the order