- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court received a Special Leave Petition (SLP); permission to file the SLP was granted and the delay in filing was condoned. The petition prompted the Court to revisit and monitor compliance with its earlier directions in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311 regarding crime-scene videography and in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (2015) 8 SCC 744 concerning installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and prisons. In this order, the Court initiates further proceedings to address outstanding issues related to audio-video recording of “Section 1 statements” and comprehensive CCTV coverage in police stations.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and how audio-video recordings of “Section 1 statements,” as contemplated by the proviso to Section 1, should be implemented.
- Whether additional directions are necessary for the systematic installation of CCTV cameras in police stations across the country and for establishing oversight mechanisms.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311 | Directed introduction of videography in criminal investigations, establishment of a Central Oversight Body (COB), and phased implementation with specified timelines. | The present order emphasizes the need for follow-up on these directives and seeks reports on progress. |
| D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (2015) 8 SCC 744 | Mandated installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and prisons to curb human-rights abuses. | The Court recalls this precedent to underline the importance of CCTV coverage and the necessity of an oversight mechanism to review footage. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that effective implementation of its prior directives on videography and CCTV installation is crucial. Acknowledging the “larger questions” still unresolved, it decided that notices must be issued to the Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) and other official respondents to obtain their responses. Recognizing the technical and policy complexities involved, the Court appointed Shri Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist in framing and answering these questions. The order thus focuses on ensuring administrative follow-through rather than adjudicating substantive rights at this stage.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: Permission to file the SLP is granted; delay is condoned; notices are issued to the Union of India (MHA) and other respondents; Shri Siddharth Dave is appointed as amicus curiae.
Implications: The proceeding shifts into a supervisory phase where the Court will assess compliance with earlier mandates on videography of investigations and CCTV installation in police stations. No new legal precedent is set, but the order signals heightened judicial scrutiny and may lead to future directives affecting nationwide policing practices.
Order
1. Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
2. Issue notice having regard to the larger question viz. the question of audio-video recordings of Section 1 statements as is provided by Section 1 proviso, as well as the larger question as to the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations generally.
3. This Court had issued certain directions in Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P. (2018) 5 SCC 311, as follows :
“10. Thus, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the fact that as of now investigating agencies in India are not fully equipped and prepared for the use of videography, the time is ripe that steps are taken to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime scene as desirable and acceptable best practice as suggested by the Committee of the MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law. We approve the Centrally Driven Plan of Action prepared by the Committee and the timeline as mentioned above. Let the consequential steps for implementation thereof be taken at the earliest.
11. We direct that with a view to implement the Plan of Action prepared by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up by the MHA forthwith. The COB may issue directions from time to time. Suggestions of the Committee in its report may also be kept in mind. The COB will be responsible for further planning and implementation of use of videography. We direct the Central Government to give full support to the COB and place necessary funds at its disposal. We also direct that the COB may issue appropriate directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner and in first phase of implementation by 15-7-2018 crime scene videography must be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB.
12. We place on record the suggestion of the learned Amicus Curiae that funding for this project may be initially by the Centre to the extent possible and a central server may be set up. These suggestions may be considered by the COB. We also note that law and order is a State subject.
13. We may also refer to a connected issue already dealt with by this Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (2015) 8 SCC 744 This Court directed that with a view to check human rights abuse CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations as well as in prisons. There is need for a further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations. Let the COB issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest. The COB may also compile information as to compliance of such instructions in the next three months and give a report to this Court.
14. Compliance with above directions may be ensured by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government as well as Home Secretaries of all the State Governments. An affidavit of progress achieved may be filed by the Oversight Body on or before 31-7-2018. Put up the matter for further consideration on 1-8-2018.”
(emphasis in original)
The follow up to these directions is important.
4. We, therefore, issue notice to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Standing counsel to be served in addition. We appoint Shri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist us on the larger questions. Issue notice to the official respondents viz. Respondents 3 to 5.
Alert