Safety Measures In Courts | Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Submit Responses On CCTV Footage Installation To Amicus Curiae

A bench of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions with respect to special measures to enhance the security of court premises in all Indian courts, as well as the people involved in various capacities with the justice delivery system. Under the scanner were incidents such as an additional district judge being mowed down by an autorickshaw in broad daylight in Jharkhand’s Dhanbad in July 2021. Suggestions in various petitions included the installation of surveillance cameras and the creation of a dedicated security force for courts and judges.

After the counsel for the Bar Council of India sought additional time to file a final affidavit, the bench decided to adjourn the hearing in the petitions to May. However, before passing an order, Justice Bhat observed that the latest available report on the death of the judge in Dhanbad was from 2021, when the Central Bureau of Investigation, which had taken over an investigation into the incident from a special investigation team of the state police, submitted an interim report. “An interim investigation report was given to us, for whatever reason, in a sealed cover in 2021. We do not know the progress after that,” said the Supreme Court judge (In August 2022, a CBI court had sentenced two persons to life imprisonment after finding them guilty of committing the judge's murder).

The amicus curiae highlighted the need to record the high courts’ responses with respect to first, the installation of CCTV cameras in court premises and the progress thereof, and second, the feasibility of audio-visual recording of evidence to ensure fairness and clarity in trials. It would become ‘cumbersome’ to direct the high courts to file their responses, Justice Bhat pointed out. “At a designated time, you hold a virtual meeting with the registrar-generals of the high courts. They can get their instructions in writing and also send it to you before the meeting.”

“That would be more appropriate. If this court so directs, I will do the needful,” Luthra responded.

Accordingly, the bench pronounced, “The Bar Council of India will file its affidavit within four weeks. The high courts are directed to cooperate with the amicus who has been requested to convene a video conference meeting(s) to compile their response on the two aspects. Suitable safeguards and guidelines may be indicated to the amicus. Information should be preferably sent to him at least a week in advance of the scheduled meeting. The Central Bureau of Investigation shall file a latest status report with respect to the proceedings transferred to it pertaining to the murder of a district judge in Dhanbad, Jharkhand. List after four weeks.”

On the day of the last hearing, the Justice Bhat-led bench had addressed the need for striking a balance between the concept of an open court system and access to courts on the one hand, and security concerns, on the other. “Courts cannot be turned into fortresses,” Justice Bhat had said.

Case Title

Karunakar Mahalik v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1422 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order