High Court issues contempt notice to Haryana DGP over installation of CCTV cameras

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 18

Rapping Haryana for coming out with “absurd arguments” and restrictive reading of a Supreme Court judgment on CCTV cameras’ installation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a contempt notice to the state DGP. The direction came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed narrow interpretation of term “police station”, referred to in the ruling, was aimed to exclude special investigation units and other premises from the obligation to install CCTV cameras.

Willful exclusion

The court rapped the State for its narrow interpretation of “police station” aimed to exclude special investigation units and other premises from the obligation to install CCTV cameras

Justice Bhardwaj also issued contempt to Panipat’s then and incumbent SP. They, too, were asked to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated for willful disobedience of the Supreme Court orders.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the issue was pending before the apex court, where Haryana had filed an affidavit claiming compliance with the mandate to install cameras at all police stations and police posts within the State.

He also took note of the argument of the State’s counsel that the directions required installation of CCTV cameras specifically at police stations. There was no requirement to install the cameras on the premises of any other agency, which carried out interrogation and had the power of detention.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the State had deliberately chosen to resort to the judgment’s restrictive reading. Its narrow interpretation of “police station” was aimed to exclude special investigation units and other premises from the obligation to install CCTV cameras. But the judgments were not to be read as statutes.

They were to be understood in the context of their purpose, which was to prevent custodial torture and protect fundamental rights.

Justice Bhardwaj said the only reason given by the State was that it would suffer prejudice “in relation to investigation, crime and criminals”. But the contention stood rejected by the Supreme Court DK Basu’s judgment, which gave precedence to the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The interpretation averred by the State is evidently absurd considering that the Supreme Court has directed installation of the CCTV cameras even on the premises of the central agencies namely, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agencies, Directorate of Enforcement, NCB, DRI, SFIO etc., which deal with offences of much higher degree, criminals who pose danger to the sovereignty of the State and have immense resources at their command,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

The Bench added “police station” in the judgment was a generic expression, not a restricted term used in the CrPC. The acceptance of the State’s interpretation would defeat the very object of installing CCTV cameras “merely by changing the seat of interrogation and investigation to premises other than the police station”. It was definitely not the intent or object behind the judgments passed by the Supreme Court.