'Footage Must Be Stored Atleast For A Year': Madras High Court Directs DGP To Ensure Proper Functioning Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

The Madras High Court has observed that inspite of repeated orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Police Department is not equipped with CCTV cameras for storage of footage, which must be at least for a period of one year. This defeats the purpose for which the cameras are installed, the court added.Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by one R.R Saravana Balagursamy seeking to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Inspector of Police and two Special Sub-inspectors of Police of the Vadamadurai Police Station of the Dindigul district for their illegal acts and violation of human rights.The Petitioner had submitted that the CCTV footage of the police station may be verified to confirm his illegal detention. However, the Government Pleader informed the Court that CCTV footage in a police station is maintained only for 30 days and thereafter it is automatically erased. Thus, there is no scope for verifying the CCTV footage.At the outset, the High Court noted that as per Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others, CCTV footage in police stations should be stored for a period of at least 18 months."Therefore, the police station must be installed with the CCTV cameras, wherein, the footage can be stored at least for a period of one year so as to conduct verification or enquiry whenever serious allegations are raised against the officials and against other persons....The very purpose and object of CCTV cameras will be defeated, if the footage is automatically erased within 15 or 30 days. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that best technologically equipped CCTV cameras must be installed or storage points must be provided for keeping the CCTV footage at least for a minimum period of one year", the court observed. The case of the petitioner was that the third respondent had approached the petitioner and demanded a bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs for registering FIR in connection with a case.When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount, the respondents confined the petitioner illegally in the police station on 23.01.2021. The respondents seized the cell phone of the petitioner and even refused him treatment, it was alleged. The court highlighted that though allegations of demand are made, the same has not been substantiated. The court also stated that mere allegations are insufficient to initiate action against the public authorities. It was also unclear if the petitioner had made representations before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department or to the concerned higher authorities. When such representation is not made, a writ petition now, after a lapse of time cannot be trusted.However, the court also took note of the fact that a number of writ petitions are being filed seeking initiation of action against public servants including police officials and a solution should be found. The court stated that - "Constitutional Courts expect that the affidavits filed are with some substance as it is a sworn affidavit and therefore, the truth must be stated. It may be easy for the High Court to dismiss the writ petition merely by stating that the petitioner has not produced any evidence regarding the demand of bribe. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such demand will not be made with evidence...However, the Courts have to find out a solution for these allegations, which are all frequently raised against the public officials and many number of writ petitions are filed seeking direction to initiate action against the public officials including the police officials."The court also stated that whenever allegations are made against public officials for initiation of departmental action, the representation or complaints submitted to the higher officials of the department must be enquired into properly and only if the petitioner is unable to redress the grievance, thereafter they must approach the Courts of law.The court also made note of the growing trend where the accused have been initiating action against police officials in order to escape the clutches of law. The court condemned such practices and stated that these practices should never be appreciated.Advocate C.S Ravichandran appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by Additional Government Pleader D. Sadiq Raja.Case Title: R.R Saravana Balagursamy v. The Superintendent of Police and OrsCase No: W.P.(MD)No.4271 of 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 113Click Here To Read/ Download Order

'Footage Must Be Stored Atleast For A Year': Madras High Court Directs DGP To Ensure Proper Functioning Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

'Footage Must Be Stored Atleast For A Year': Madras High Court Directs DGP To Ensure Proper Functioning Of CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers