Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh

 

                           CASE COMMENTARY

   Case Name- Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh                        

            Judgement dated- December 2, 2020 Bench- Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice K.M. Joseph    ,   Justice Aniruddha Bose

 

INTRODUCTION

Often the Crime's commission is viewed from the perspective of a complainant and judicial body and everyone thinks the same almost that it's the procedure but nobody looked into the matter of the police's conduct and behavioural issues that the normal public has to deal with. Several people have died in police custody after being subjected to custodial brutality. To bring this matter into the light, The Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & ORS Landmark case finally found their way out to scrutinize the moral and responsibilities of police. It upholds the human rights of the accused individual and undertrial prisoners where the Supreme court gave directions to install CCTV cameras in all the police stations and investigative agencies across India. It basically deals with human violation and custodial violence. They were instructed to install CCTV cameras along with the device which shall store data of  1 year. It is mandatory for the credibility of statements of accused persons and to curb the human rights violation by investigating officers. Also, Police authorities were directed about the places where cameras shall be installed like main gate, entry, exit, lobby, corridor, lockup etc.

FACTS OF THE CASE

While hearing a case involving custodial torture in July 2020, several courts made it mandatory for the police to install CCTV cameras because several people have died in custody due to police abuse. In the 2015 judgement of D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court gave directions for the installation of CCTV cameras in all prisons throughout the country to check discipline. But it was not made mandatory.

The Supreme Court also cited to its 3rd April, 2017 case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and directed the Government that a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the action plan with respect to the use of videography in the crime scenes during the investigation. An Independent Committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish its observations in the form of a report. The COB was directed to identify the number of operational cameras in police stations, the total number of cameras placed, their placements, and how they functioned, among other things. The majority of states and territories have not filed for recognition as a Central Oversight Body (COB). 

The present case of  Paramvir Singh Saini  v. Baljit Singh  & Ors. aimed at checking police brutality, the Supreme Court ordered, the Centre, states and union territories to install CCTVs with night vision cameras in each police station, including central probe agencies such as CBI, ED, NIA etc across India. The state and union territory governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station functioning in the respective state and/or union territory. In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices. The SHO of the police station shall be responsible for the working, maintenance and recording data of 1 year of CCTVs. In areas without electricity and/or internet, the states/UTs have to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The CCTV systems “must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of clear audio as well as video footage”.

The top court said in case of serious injury and/or custodial deaths, the injured persons be free to complain to the State Human Rights Commission as also to Human Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each district of every state/UY under Section 30 of the Human Rights Act.

ISSUES RAISED

1.     How far has the installation of surveillance cameras at police stations made progress?

2.     Is the status of the central oversight body’s (COB) composition?

3.     Is the state abiding by the CrPC’s section 161(3) provision?

JUDGEMENT

1.     The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given directions that either the Principal Secretary of the State or the Secretary, Home Department of the States/Union Territories of all States and Union Territories will file compliance affidavits within 6 weeks. The SHO ought to likewise be  liable for CCTV information upkeep, information reinforcement, and issue rectification, in addition to other things.

●      All-entrance and leave variables of the Police Station.

●      Primary entryway of the Police Station.

●      All lockups, hallways, anteroom/gathering, verandas and latrines.

●      Station Hall, toward the front of the Police Station Compound, outside washroom and restrooms and back a piece of the Police Station.

●      Auditor, sub-controller and obligation official’s room and areas outside the lock-up room.

2.     The CCTV frameworks that should be introduced should be furnished with night vision and should incorporate both sound and video recording.

3.     A bench ordered the Centre to “install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of” the CBI, NIA, NCB, according to their judgement.

4.     The recording system should be set up so that the data is kept for at least 18 months.

5.     In areas without electricity and/or internet, the states/UTs have to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power.

6.     The Supreme Court also issued orders for the institution of 'Oversight Committees at the state level, namely, State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC) and district level, namely, District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) to expedite the ongoing installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras in police stations across.

7.     The Court has also directed that every SHO would be responsible for the functioning of CCTV cameras and their recordings, and the maintenance of tamper-free CCTV data.

ANALYSIS

This Supreme Court judgment has mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in cross-examination centres with the aim to strike at the heart of police ruthlessness and the potential brutality and torture inmates may face during custody. The compliance affidavits or action taken reports were filed by 14 states, namely, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Nagaland, Karnataka, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim, Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and two Union Territories, namely, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. 

The judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others sets an important precedent by making the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and offices of investigative authorities mandatory. This will secure the Indian people the right to live a dignified life and will protect under-trial prisoners and those in police custody from custodial torture.

Further, The judgment also specifies the authorities to which an individual can register a complaint. It was high time that such a decision was passed by the Supreme Court with the aim of protecting the people from the menace of custodial torture.

CONCLUSION

The ruling highlights human rights and the abolition of custodial torture, which is a violation of the Right to Life. Article 21, “Right to life and personal liberty,” covers a wide range of human rights as well as the abolition of imprisonment abuse. This decision places a high value on the fundamental right to life. This Supreme Court ruling acknowledges this fact and corrects faults in the most severe legislation, which is supported in the name of national security. By giving the victim a copy of the video footage in which he was subjected to apparent force, the judgement supports natural justice principles. There has been an example of rebelliousness  with Supreme Court guidelines, which were first given in 2015 in the DK Basu case and afterward again in 2018 in Shahfi Mohammad v. Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The establishment of CCTV cameras is basically one stage in tending to the fundamental exemption delighted in by hoodlums, given the nearby obligations of fellowship among the police. A large number of cases exhibits cops’ unyielding resistance to giving casualties admittance to records, just as a predictable work to safeguard their confidants from any examination or prosecutorial activity.

This decision, along with a few others, act as a guideline to ensure everybody is treated equitably. Court judgments serve as precedent for future cases, and the ground on which justice is given is determined by the court’s decision. So, in order to put in place an effective process to prevent civil rights violations, torture, and deaths in police custody, the Supreme Court has published a comprehensive set of instructions. This will help to solve the coming cases regarding the police brutality where the CCTV footage will be a witness for the victim side, with the heavy CCTV surveillance, the cases regarding the brutality in the police custody will decrease.

Furthermore, because this judgement has been recorded by the Court, it may have long-term implications in protecting human rights. During the Covid-19 period, we witnessed an endless number of extreme forces being used by the police on the citizens of this country. I hope that, with such restrictions in place, the use of force at police stations will come to an end in the future.

 

 

              -By Vanshika Gupta