Ex-CJ moves HC against installation of ‘surveillance cameras’ at Chief Justice's residence

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 20

In virtually a Chief Justice-versus-Chief Justice case, a former Chief Justice and a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice N.K. Sodhi, on Tuesday moved the HC against the installation of “surveillance cameras” at the residence of the present Chief Justice.

Living opposite the official residence of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha in Sector 4, Karnataka High Court’s former Chief Justice Sodhi claimed that the high-resolution, infra-red, cameras installed on the “tall poles” violated his right to privacy.

Justice Sodhi’s plea

• A notice, required to be displayed for general public’s information that the area is under CCTV surveillance, was no put up
• A CCTV camera cannot be located at a place where it collects information which invades an individual’s the privacy
• The Chief Justice is well-protected at his residence, while moving in his vehicle and at the High Court        
• Even during the peak of terrorism, this kind of security was not there for the Chief Justice.
• For other Judges, such security was not available
• CCTV cameras cannot prevent an untoward incident 

His counsel Rajiv Atma Ram, Arjun Partap Atma Ram and Brijesh Khosla contended: “The cameras can record persons and cars and other vehicles coming to, leaving, going in, and going out of the petitioner’s residence; they can look into the front and the side portion of the petitioner’s built-up house. Thus, there is an invasion of privacy of all the residents of (his) house number 36, Sector 4, Chandigarh….”

The petition against the Union of India, UT Chandigarh, Adviser to the UT Administrator, the Chandigarh Police, the High Court and CRPF Director-General was placed before Division Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Parkash this morning.  The matter has been disposed of but detailed order was not yet available.

UT additional standing counsel Namit Kumar, during the course of hearing, placed before the Bench an “inquiry report” in a sealed cover. A communication by HC Registrar-General Sanjiv Berry to Justice Sodhi was also placed before the Bench. It said spot inspection was carried out after Justice Sodhi’s letter was sent to UT DGP for information and necessary action.

The DGP’s office subsequently said the cameras were installed to “secure the protected persons from all possible apprehensions of threats in accordance with the provisions of the Yellow Book”. These cameras did not cover the houses on the opposite side of the street and only covered area up to the road-berm of house number 34 and 36. There was no trespass or breach into privacy of house number 36.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.