A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. addresses the persistent failure of States, Union Territories, and central investigative agencies to meaningfully implement prior directions of the Supreme Court concerning installation and functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative offices. The Court examined compliance with its earlier order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which mandated videography of crime scenes and establishment of oversight mechanisms.

Upon perusal of affidavits filed by several States and Union Territories, the Court found the disclosures grossly inadequate, vague, and evasive, particularly regarding the number, positioning, operational status, audio-video capability, and data retention period of CCTV cameras. The judgment emphasises that CCTV surveillance in police stations is not an administrative luxury but a constitutional necessity flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court laid down detailed directions regarding constitution of State Level and District Level Oversight Committees, allocation of funds, technical specifications of CCTV systems, responsibility of Station House Officers, preservation of footage, and accessibility of recordings for redressal of custodial violence, serious injuries, and deaths. The judgment also extended the mandate to central agencies such as CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO. The Court reinforced accountability, transparency, and human rights protection as the core constitutional values underpinning these directions and treated non-compliance as a serious affront to rule of law.

Keywords: CCTV surveillance, custodial violence, Article 21, police accountability, human rights courts

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerged from continuing judicial concern regarding custodial violence, illegal detentions, and abuse of police power. The Supreme Court revisited its earlier directions in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311, which had mandated use of videography at crime scenes and creation of a Central Oversight Body under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The background of the present proceedings lies in the failure of executive authorities to operationalise these directions even after a lapse of more than two and a half years.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that custodial deaths and allegations of torture continue despite constitutional guarantees under Article 21. The absence of objective recording mechanisms was seen as a structural deficiency enabling impunity. Earlier jurisprudence, particularly D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (2015) 8 SCC 744, had already recognised custodial torture as a direct violation of fundamental rights. The present judgment situates CCTV surveillance as an extension of those constitutional safeguards.

The issue was triggered when affidavits filed by States and Union Territories, pursuant to orders dated 16.07.2020 and 16.09.2020, failed to disclose basic data regarding CCTV installation. The Court found that the affidavits lacked transparency and accountability, reflecting a mechanical compliance approach. This prompted the Court to issue granular, enforceable directions addressing infrastructure, funding, oversight, and grievance redressal. The background thus reflects judicial frustration with executive inertia and reiterates the Court’s constitutional role as guardian of personal liberty.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 22.11.2016. During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of inquiry to systemic issues concerning audio-video recording in police stations.

On 03.04.2018, the Court in Shafhi Mohammad directed establishment of a Central Oversight Body and mandated videography of crime scenes. Pursuant to this, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the COB on 09.05.2018. Subsequent directions required States and Union Territories to submit Action Taken Reports.

By orders dated 16.07.2020 and 16.09.2020, the Court sought specific disclosures regarding CCTV cameras in police stations and constitution of Oversight Committees. Fourteen States and two Union Territories filed affidavits. Upon examination, the Court found that most affidavits failed to specify the number of police stations, number and placement of cameras, working condition, audio capability, and data retention period.

The Court also noted that Oversight Committees mandated earlier were either not constituted or existed only on paper. No clarity was provided on budgetary allocation or maintenance responsibility. This factual vacuum compelled the Court to issue exhaustive directions to ensure real-time compliance. The facts thus demonstrated systemic non-compliance rather than isolated administrative lapses.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether installation of CCTV cameras in police stations is an enforceable component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
ii. Whether States and Union Territories have failed to comply with binding directions issued under Article 142?
iii. Whether absence of oversight mechanisms facilitates custodial violence and human rights violations?
iv. Whether central investigative agencies are equally bound by CCTV installation mandates?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioner submitted that absence of CCTV surveillance enables unchecked custodial abuse and frustrates fair investigation. It was argued that earlier directions of the Supreme Court were treated as advisory rather than binding. Reliance was placed on D.K. Basu, where custodial safeguards were held intrinsic to personal liberty. The Petitioner contended that without audio-video recording, procedural protections under Sections 161 and 41 CrPC remain illusory. The failure to install CCTV cameras was argued to amount to a continuing constitutional violation.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondents submitted that steps were being taken progressively and cited logistical and financial constraints. It was argued that several police stations are located in remote areas lacking electricity and internet connectivity. The States contended that phased implementation was underway and sought further time. The Union of India submitted that the Central Oversight Body had already issued advisories and that compliance was a shared federal responsibility.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
ii. Section 161(3) CrPC
iii. Sections 17, 18 and 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court categorically held that CCTV installation in police stations is a constitutional imperative flowing from Article 21. It rejected financial and logistical excuses and held that technological limitations cannot dilute fundamental rights. The Court issued binding directions mandating installation of CCTV cameras covering all critical areas of police stations, including lock-ups, corridors, interrogation rooms, and entry-exit points.

The judgment created a detailed institutional framework by mandating State Level Oversight Committees and District Level Oversight Committees with clearly defined compositions and duties. Responsibility for maintenance and functioning was fixed upon the Station House Officer. The Court specified technical standards including night vision, audio recording, and minimum storage of 18 months.

Significantly, the Court extended these directions to central investigative agencies such as CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO. It directed installation of CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms of these agencies. The judgment further mandated establishment of Human Rights Courts in every district to address complaints of custodial violence.

The Court treated non-compliance as a serious breach of constitutional duty and directed senior bureaucrats to file affidavits with concrete timelines. The tone of the judgment reflects constitutional urgency and intolerance towards executive apathy.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the holding that CCTV surveillance in police stations is an integral safeguard of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court affirmed that transparency in police functioning is non-negotiable. By linking CCTV installation to prevention of custodial torture, the Court elevated administrative compliance to constitutional obligation. The ratio also clarifies that earlier directions issued under Article 142 are binding and enforceable. Failure to implement them amounts to constitutional contempt.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that public confidence in the criminal justice system depends upon visible accountability. It noted that technological tools like CCTV are neutral witnesses that protect both citizens and honest police officers. The Court also remarked that human rights commissions must actively utilise CCTV footage rather than remain passive recipients of complaints. These observations, though not forming the core ratio, underline the Court’s broader vision of rights-based policing.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Constitution of State Level Oversight Committees and District Level Oversight Committees.
ii. Mandatory budgetary allocation by Finance Departments.
iii. Installation of audio-video CCTV cameras with night vision.
iv. Minimum data retention of 18 months.
v. Responsibility of SHO for maintenance and reporting.
vi. Establishment of Human Rights Courts in each district.
vii. Display of signage informing citizens of CCTV coverage and complaint mechanisms.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment represents a decisive constitutional intervention aimed at structural reform rather than episodic correction. It bridges the gap between abstract rights and operational safeguards. By embedding surveillance within Article 21, the Court ensured that accountability mechanisms acquire constitutional permanence. The insistence on oversight committees reflects judicial awareness that technology without supervision degenerates into symbolism.

The extension of directions to central agencies removes institutional asymmetry and reinforces equality before law. The judgment also strengthens the remedial architecture by linking CCTV footage to Human Rights Courts and commissions. The approach reflects a rights-centric model of policing aligned with international human rights norms against custodial torture.

The judgment stands as a strong reminder that governance failures affecting liberty invite strict judicial scrutiny. It recalibrates the balance between state power and individual dignity and reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as sentinel of constitutional morality.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311
ii. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (2015) 8 SCC 744

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
iii. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993