PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

SLP(Crl) No.-003543 / 2020

Disposition

Attorney(S)

BANKEY BIHARI

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The present order is rendered in a batch of matters led by SLP (Crl.) No. 3543/2020, arising from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 22-11-2016. The Supreme Court had earlier issued directions mandating the Union of India, all States and Union Territories to make budgetary allocations and install Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in police stations and investigative agency offices to ensure transparency. By order dated 21-02-2023 the Court required every jurisdiction to file status affidavits by 29-03-2023. The hearing on 18-04-2023 reviewed compliance on the basis of Report No. 7 filed by the Court-appointed Amicus Curiae, Shri Siddharth Dave.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Union of India, States and Union Territories have complied with the Court’s earlier directions regarding budgetary provision and actual installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative agency offices.
Whether non-compliance warrants initiation of contempt proceedings against defaulting jurisdictions and their senior officials.

Arguments of the Parties

Submissions Recorded During Hearing

State of Rajasthan: Additional Advocate General Dr. Manish Singhvi informed that CCTV cameras have been installed in 888 out of 892 police stations.
State of Sikkim: Counsel stated that all 34 police stations are equipped with CCTV cameras.
Union Territory of Lakshadweep: Counsel submitted that an affidavit of compliance has been filed.
State of Telangana: Counsel attributed non-filing of compliance affidavit to a recent change of counsel and sought further time.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After examining Report No. 7 of the Amicus Curiae, the Court noted:

Full compliance by the Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar and Ladakh, and by the States of Mizoram and Goa.
Partial or complete non-compliance by the Union of India and 26 other States/Union Territories.
Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu, and Lakshadweep had not filed the required affidavits as of the hearing date, despite explicit directions dated 21-02-2023.

The Court emphasised that the matter is not adversarial; the directions were issued to secure transparency in law-enforcement operations. While expressing dissatisfaction, the Bench declined to impose immediate punitive measures, opting instead to afford a final opportunity for compliance. It specifically recorded the submissions from certain States/UTs and acknowledged partial progress, but reiterated that full, verified compliance affidavits are mandatory.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court granted a final extension of three months—until 18-07-2023—for the Union of India and all States/Union Territories to achieve full compliance and file fresh affidavits of compliance. Failure to do so will require the personal appearance of the concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator, or in the case of the Union of India, the Secretary (Home), to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. Interlocutory Application No. 79898 of 2023 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue available legal remedies. The matters were listed next on 25-07-2023.

Implications: The order maintains judicial oversight of nationwide CCTV installation in police establishments. Although no immediate contempt action was taken, the personal-appearance directive significantly escalates pressure on defaulting governments. The ruling does not create new substantive precedent but reinforces the Court’s earlier directives and underscores accountability for their execution.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3543/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-11-2016 in CRWP No. 1245/2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BALJIT SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 26113/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 90624/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING COUNTER

AFFIDAVIT

IA No. 8919/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 12227/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 91778/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 12159/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 32158/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 11296/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 26672/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 63144/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 25280/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 20846/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 117574/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 11232/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 11064/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 63139/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 10314/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 26111/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 118616/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 28732/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 63148/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH

W.P.(Crl.) No. 79/2021 (X) (IA No. 17363/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT

IA No. 17356/2021 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)

W.P.(Crl.) No. 10/2021 (X) (IA No. 1829/2021 - EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM RELIEF IA No. 1833/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) CONMT.PET.(C) No. 731/2022 in SLP(Crl) No. 3543/2020 (II-B)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 18-04-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH Amicus Curiae Mr. Siddhartha Dave,Sr.Adv. Ms. Jemtiben Ao,Adv.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Adv.

Mr. Satyabeer Singh, Adv.

Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, AOR

Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR

Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Abhayanand, Adv.

Mr. Birendra Bikram, Adv.

Mr. Kartikeya Gautam, Adv.

Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR

Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.

Mrs. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR

Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR

Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.

Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv.

Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv.

Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Kv Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Akbar Ali, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR

Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR

Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR

Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Upendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. P.S. Negi,Adv.

Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmdhikari, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Ashok Basoya, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Ojha, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Aastik Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank,Adv. Mr. Aastik Dhingtra,Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta,Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Priyanka Swamy, Adv.

Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv. Mr. Jaswant Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. Satish Singh, Adv. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara,Adv. Ms. Pallavi,Adv.

Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu,Adv. Ms. Harshita Gupta,Adv.

Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR

Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers and Co., AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR

Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR

Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mrs. Sudhir Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Ekar Mazumdar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.

Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agrawal,Adv.

Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv.

Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar,Adv.

Mrinal E. Mazumdar,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari.C, Adv. Mr. Abbas, Adv.

Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Ms. Avinashi K. Bedi, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. In pursuance of the order dated 21.02.2023, Shri Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus Curiae, has filed Report No.7. As per the Report, the learned Amicus Curiae also gave details in a tabulated form about the affidavits filed by the Union of India, various State Governments/Union Territories.

2. The Report would reveal that two Union Territories i.e. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar and Union Territory of Ladakh as well as the States of Mizoram and Goa have fully complied with the directions issued by this Court i.e. making budgetary allocations as well as actual installation of the CCTV cameras

3. However, insofar as Union of India and other 26 State Governments/Union Territories are concerned, the Report would show that either there is non-compliance with both the aspects or non- compliance with one of them.

4. In so far as States of Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu and Union Territory of Lakshadweep are concerned, they have not even filed the affidavits pointing out the present status.

5. Vide our order dated 21.02.2023 we had specifically directed all the State Governments as well as the Union Territories to file their respective affidavits prior to 29.03.2023, we had also warned that if such affidavits are not filed, we shall be constrained to take serious view of the matter.

6. Insofar as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that out of 892 police stations CCTV cameras have actually been installed in 888 police stations. Insofar as the State of Sikkim is concerned, the learned counsel states that the CCTV cameras have been installed in all the 34 police stations. Insofar as state of Telangana is concerned, it is stated that there is change in counsel and as such the orders could not be complied with. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep that they have also filed the affidavit.

7. This is not an adversarial litigation. When this Court had issued directions, in order to maintain transparency at the police station and the officers of the investigating agencies, the Union of India and the State Governments/Union Territories ought to have complied with the said directions.

8. In any case, we are not inclined to take a stricter action at this stage. However, we grant three months' time, by way of last chance, to the Union of India and all the State Governments/Union

Territories to comply with the directions issued by this Court.

9. All the State Governments/Union Territories and Union of India are directed to file their respective affidavits prior to 18.07.2023 stating therein that the compliance, in effect, has been made.

10. We further direct that the Chief Secretary/Administrator of such of the State Government/Union Territory, who fails to comply with the directions and not file the required affidavit prior to 18.07.2023 shall personally remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing, to show cause as to why an action for committing contempt should not be taken against them.

11. We clarify that a fresh compliance affidavit needs to be filed by the Union of India and all the State Governments/Union Territories, even if they have already filed it, after supplying a copy thereof to the learned Amicus Curiae.

12. It is disheartening to note that insofar as Union of India is concerned, out of seven investigating agencies no steps of sincere nature have been taken in case of four investigating agencies.

13. We direct the Union of India also to comply with the aforesaid directions in respect of its agencies prior to the aforesaid date and file an affidavit of compliance, prior to 18.07.2023.

14. In case the Union of India does not comply with the aforesaid directions and does not file an affidavit, as aforesaid, the Secretary (Home), Union of India, shall remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing, to show cause as to why an action for committing contempt should not be taken against them.

15. Leaned counsel appearing for the applicants, in I.A. No.79898 of 2023, seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law.

16. I.A. No.79898 of 2023 is, therefore, permitted to be withdrawn, with the liberty sought for.

17. Stand over to 25.07.2023.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Submissions Recorded During Hearing

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI v. BALJIT SINGH

Comments