In The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Suresh Yadav (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan issued notice and stayed the impugned 6-page order dated February 13, 2025 passed by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Patna High Court directing departmental action against Superintendent of Police, Bettiah. Supreme Court's order reads:"In the meantime, the operation and effect of the order impugned passed by the High Court shall remain stayed."
The order of Supreme Court's Division Bench staying High Court's order seems to be in breach of judicial discipline. It seems to oblivious of the judgement dated December 2, 2020 by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh AIR 2021 Supreme Court 64. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar was one of the respondents in the case. The 3-Judge Bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, K.M. Joseph and R. F. Nariman recalled that the Court, vide order dated September 16, 2020 had impleaded all the States and Union Territories to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras qua each Police Station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the order dated April 3, 2018 of the Court in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311. It also recalled that the Court, while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon.
The report of the amicus dated January 25, 2021 mentioned in Court's order dated January 27, 2021 reveals that Bihar government had filed an filed an affidavit of compliance. The Court's order dated March 2, 2021 reads:"So far as the State of Bihar is concerned, nothing has been indicated as to amounts to be allocated for the project despite which a timeline of 24 months to complete the project has been indicated. We are most displeased with this affidavit. It shows a complete lack of any regard for the citizens’ Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for our orders. We make it clear that within an extended time frame having regard to the complexity and size of the State, compliance is mandated. Therefore, we direct the State of Bihar to allocate funds for the purposes mentioned in our orders within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the timeline for compliance will be fixed at a period of eight months after the period prescribed for budgetary allocation, i.e. within nine months from today. Our orders should have been followed in letter and spirit." (p.11-12)
Supreme Court's order dated April 6, 2021 records that the Court perused the progress report qua the State of Bihar. The Paramvir Singh Saini case is pending. It was last heard on February 9, 2024. The Court is monitoring compliance with its judgement and orders. The case from Bettiah reveals that non-compliance with Supreme Court's order has become the norm. Bihar government's affidavit in the Court had submitted that it keeps "12 month back-up" of CCTV footage.
But the affidavit of the respondents in the High Court reveals that CCTV footage is being maintained by outsourcing agencies they maintain only 20 days record in respect of CCTV footage in the hard-disk and footage beyond 20 days are automatically deleted from the Hard-disk
In Suresh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through The Director General of Police, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Chaudhari bench of the High Court heard the petition filed in the High Court on May 22, 2024. It was registered on May 28, 2024. The other four respondents are: District Magistrate, West Champaran Bettiah, Superintendent of Police, District West Champaran at Bettiah Bettiah, West Champaran, Block Development Officer, Sadar Bettiah Sadar Bettiah and Manoj Kumar Singh, Inspector- Cum- Sho, Bettiah Muffasil Police Station Bettiah. Justice Chaudhari's order dated February 13, 2025 reads:"....this Court finds that the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah is prima-facie found responsible for dereliction of duty when he failed to take any action upon the application dated 03.05.2024 filed by the wife of the petitioner. Such inaction obviously will have adverse impact in the investigation of the case. In view of such circumstances, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, is directed to take departmental action against the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah for the above inaction while supervising the investigation in respect to Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No.180 of 2024."
The High Court's order should also have asked for the status report on the West Champaran District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) which was required in compliance with Supreme Court's directions.
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent authorities for Inquiry in a fair, impartial and time-bound manner by special team officer of higher rank or investigation by any independent agency such as CBI on complaint of wife of petitioner having acknowledgment number 1632/PG dated May 3, 2024 regarding false implication by planting Charas by Bettiah Muffasil Police officials on the petitioner in connection with Bettiah Town Thana Case No.180 of 2024 dated April 19, 2024. Suresh Yadav, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to secure, preserve and place on record the CCTV footage dated April 19, 2024 between the time period of 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM of all the Cameras installed in and around Parking of Zila Parishad, Bettiah near Superintendent of Police Office of CCTV cameras installed at Collectorate, Gate, of CCTV cameras installed by Nagar Parishad between two gates of Bus stand, Bettiah in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated December 2, 2020 passed in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3543/2020. He sought appropriate writ or writs in the nature of certiorari for deleting the name of the petitioner from array of accused in connection with Bettiah Muffasil Case No.180 of 2024 dated April 19, 2024 registered under Sections 414 IPC, 8, 20(B)(ii)(c)/22(c), 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and for quashing all other consequential proceeding thereafter. The petitioner was apprehended in this P.S. case.
The prosecution story is that on April 19, 2024 two persons were apprehended while riding on a motorcycle and some Narcotic substance were recovered from their possession. Police seized the Narcotic substance, motorcycle and arrested the said two persons. In course of interrogation of the said two persons, they allegedly disclosed that Suresh Yadav, the petitioner was also in the racket. Suresh Yadav was arrested and commercial quantity of Narcotic substance, viz., 04 kgs. of Charas were recovered from the possession of Suresh Yadav. On May 3, 2024 the wife of the petitioner submitted an application wherein she stated that the motorcycle in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No.180 of 2024 was seized from a parking lot at Bettiah and the persons who were apprehended were not traveling by the said motorcycle. Suresh Yadav was implicated in the case on some false and concocted allegations. Therefore, she prayed for preserving CCTV footage dated April 19, 2024 during the period between 12:30 p.m. and 05:30 p.m. in respect of all Cameras installed in an around the parking lot of Zila Parishad, Bettiah, near the office of Superintendent of Police, Bettiah as well as cameras installed at the Collectorate Gate and Nagar Parishad between two gates of Bus Stand, Bettiah as per the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3543/2020.
Notably, the very first order dated June 5, 2024 passed by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad of the High Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah to look into the request of the petitioner. The order recorded that "the petitioner has already submitted a request in this regard in the Public Grievance Cell of Bettiah Police as back as on 08.05.2024 but till date, no action has been taken." The order reads:"Ajay, learned G.A. 5 appears for the State and submits that there is no objection to the said prayer of the petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter for the present, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah to look into the request of the petitioner and take steps to secure and preserve the CCTV footage in accordance with law as prayed in paragraph ‘1(ii)’ of the writ application as the same may be required to be considered at appropriate stage."
Justice Chaudhary's order dated February 13, 2025 records:"The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating, inter-alia, that the record of CCTV footage is maintained by an outsourcing agency under the name and style of AIM and Company Pvt. Ltd. and they maintained 20 days record in respect of CCTV footage in the hard-disk and footage beyond 20 days are automatically deleted from the Hard-disk. Therefore, on the date of the order passed by this Court, CCTV footage dated 19.04.2024 was automatically deleted and it is not possible for retrieve the data."
The High Court's order reads:"....this Court is of the view that when an application was filed on 03.05.2024, i.e. within 20 days from the date of the alleged incident for restoration of data of CCTV footage around the place of occurrence filed by the wife of the present petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah, he ought to have passed the order of protection and restoration of such data for proper investigation. The Superintendent of Police, Bettiah must know that the investigation of a criminal case is not for implicating a person in a criminal offence, but to unearth the truth, when the family member of one of the accused demanded that the truth will be unearth, if the CCTV footage was examined failure to take any action on such application by the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah amounts to an act of police inaction, for which the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah is held liable."
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Patna High Court factors in the directions of the Supreme Court for constitution of Oversight Committee at the State and District levels. The State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC) consists of:
(i) The Secretary/Additional Secretary, Home Department;
(ii) Secretary/Additional Secretary, Finance Department;
(iii) The Director General/Inspector General of Police; and
(iv) The Chairperson/member of the State Women’s Commission.
The District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) comprises of:
(i) The Divisional Commissioner/ Commissioner of Divisions/ Regional Commissioner/Revenue Commissioner Division of the District (by whatever name called);
(ii) The District Magistrate of the District;
(iii) A Superintendent of Police of that District; and
(iv) A mayor of a municipality within the District/ a Head of the Zilla Panchayat in rural areas.
Supreme Court's judgement reads:" It shall be the duty of the SLOC to see that the directions passed by
this Court are carried out. Amongst others, the duties shall consist of:
a) Purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and its equipment;
b) Obtaining the budgetary allocation for the same;
c) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
d) Carrying out inspections and addressing the grievances received from the DLOC; and
e) To call for monthly reports from the DLOC and immediately address any concerns like faulty equipment.
Likewise, the DLOC shall have the following obligations:
a) Supervision, maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
b) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;
c) To interact with the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “SHO”) as to the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs and its equipment; and
d) To send monthly reports to the SLOC about the functioning of CCTVs and allied equipment.
e) To review footage stored from CCTVs in the various Police Stations to check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported."
The judgement further reads: "14. The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and
recording of CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station
concerned. It shall be the duty and obligation of the SHO to
immediately report to the DLOC any fault with the equipment or
malfunctioning of CCTVs. If the CCTVs are not functioning in a
particular police station, the concerned SHO shall inform the DLOC
of the arrest / interrogations carried out in that police station during
the said period and forward the said record to the DLOC. If the
concerned SHO has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of
CCTVs of a particular Police Station, the DLOC shall immediately
request the SLOC for repair and purchase of the equipment, which
shall be done immediately.
15. The Director General/Inspector General of Police of each State and Union Territory should issue directions to the person in charge of a Police Station to entrust the SHO of the concerned Police Station with the responsibility of assessing the working condition of the CCTV cameras installed in the police station and also to take corrective action to restore the functioning of all non-functional CCTV cameras. The SHO should also be made responsible for CCTV data maintenance, backup of data, fault rectification etc.
16. 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. Further, in order to ensure that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered, it is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all entry and exit points; main gate of the police station; all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby/the reception area; all verandas/outhouses, Inspector's room; Sub- Inspector's room; areas outside the lock-up room; station hall; in front of the police station compound; outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets; Duty Officer’s room; back part of the police station etc.
17. CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in which there is either no electricity and/or internet, it shall be the duty of the States/Union Territories to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The internet systems that are provided must also be systems which provide clear image resolutions and audio. Most important of all is the storage of CCTV camera footage which can be done in digital video recorders and/or network video recorders. CCTV cameras must then be installed with such recording systems so that the data that is stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18 months. If the recording equipment, available in the market today, does not have the capacity to keep the recording for 18 months but for a lesser period of time, it shall be mandatory for all States, Union Territories and the Central Government to purchase one which allows storage for the maximum period possible, and, in any case, not below 1 year. It is also made clear that this will be reviewed by all the States so as to purchase equipment which is able to store the data for 18 months as soon as it is commercially available in the market. The affidavit of compliance to be filed by all States and Union Territories and Central Government shall clearly indicate that the best equipment available as of date has been purchased.
18. Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission, which is then to utilise its powers, more particularly under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, for redressal of such complaints, but also to Human Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each District of every State/Union Territory under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigation agency in order to further process the complaint made to it.....
20. The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the concerned premises by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. In addition to the above, it shall be clearly mentioned therein that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence. It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights.
21. Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2½ years since our first Order dated 03.04.2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/ Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today’s Order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks from today.....
23. The Supreme Court registry to send a copy of this Order to all Chief/Principal Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, both by physical as well as electronic means, today itself."
No comments:
Post a Comment