 |
| Rohan Meena |
INTRODUCTION
A
Synopsis
A
landmark judgement pronounced by the SC of India highlighted the pressing need
for accountability and also for surveillance in Indian police stations in the
matter of PS Saini v. Baljit Singh. The decision, which was delivered in 2020,
discussed the growing number of cases of power abuse by police officers and
custodial violence, both of which are blatant violations of Article 21, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty of the Indian Constitution.
The court ordered the mandatory setting up of CCTV cameras in all police
stations and investigating agencies after taking Suo Moto cognizance of
systematic failures in implementing its previous directives.
FACTS
OF THE CASE
Details
of the parties to the case
A
PIL was filed by Paramvir Singh, petitioner, who was a practicing attorney,
following Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The State of Punjab, Union
of India, and other pertinent state and federal law enforcement agencies were
among the respondents.
Relevant
Facts of the case
Despite
numerous directives from the SC of India, some earlier rulings like State of
West Bengal v DK Basu (1997), which was a landmark case, and Mohammad Shafhi v.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the
petitioner brought up the issue and subject of torture and recurrent deaths in
Indian prisons. Setting up of CCTV cameras in police stations was one of these
directives to stop the custodial, prison torture, and power abuse.
However,
there were no accountability or enforcement systems in place, and
implementation remained haphazard and unregulated.
History
of Procedural
In
2018, the petition was first heard. The court requested compliance reports on
CCTV installations from various states and union territories during later
hearings. The Supreme Court issued several comprehensive guidelines to ensure
accountability and transparency in custodial settings on 2nd
December 2020, following many affidavits and a delay in the state authorities'
progress.
LEGAL
ISSUES
Statement
on Legal Matters
Does
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution get in the way of police stations having
CCTV cameras?
Can
judiciary provide legally binding orders for the installation and maintenance
of surveillance systems on the property of law enforcement and investigative
agencies?
Do
states and union territories have a constitutional duty to carry out these
directives?
Why
are these issues important?
In
a democratic country, where the law enforcement organizations are tasked with
the protection of citizens and enforcing the law, these issues are critical and
crucial. Police brutality, misuse of power, unlawful detention, and torture in
custody are longstanding issues in India. This case highlights the crucial
conflict between unbridled state power and individual rights in such a setting.
CCTV surveillance can reduce abuse incidents and create space for more open
governance by acting as a deterrent and a documentary safeguard.
COURT’S
DECISION HOLDING
The
Supreme Court has deemed this issue critical and has ordered all states and
union territories to equip every police station with CCTV cameras and ensure
that every area used for questioning and detention is monitored, with the
exception of restrooms and private spaces. All investigative organizations,
including the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), and Enforcement Directorate (ED), were given this duty to
follow. The Supreme Court further ordered that an oversight mechanism be
established to address victim complaints and that the recordings be retained
for a minimum of 18 months for future reference.
Justification
The
Court ruled that the lack of surveillance directly violates citizens'
fundamental rights and fosters a culture of impunity. The court noted that
every citizen has the right to be treated with dignity, even while they are in
custody, citing previous rulings and constitutional precepts. The ruling is a
proactive, systemic intervention designed to protect the integrity of criminal
justice processes and constitutional morality.
MAJORITY
OPINION IN LEGAL REASONING
The
Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman emphasized the non-negotiable nature of Article
21 of the Constitution while expanding on earlier jurisprudence. The court came
to the conclusion that procedural safeguards were not being appropriately
applied, heavily referencing the D.K. Basu Case. Although it acknowledged the
state’s non-compliance, the ruling also cited the Shafhi Mohammad Case, which
had previously demanded CCTV surveillance.
STATUTES
AND PRECEDENTS CITED
The
constitution’s article 21 on the protection of life and liberty was cited.
·
State of West
Bengal v D.K. Basu, 1 SCC 416 (1997)
·
State of Himachal
Pradesh v Shahfi Mohammad, 2018 5 SCC 311
·
Union of India v
Punjab Union for Civil Liberties, (2004) 2 SCC 476
·
Sections 161 and
164 of the 1973 Civil Procedure Code
·
The Indian
Evidence Act, Section 24 & 25 of 1872
CASE’S
EFFECT ON LEGAL PRECEDENT
This
decision has grown to be a pillar of civil liberties protection and criminal
procedural law. It established certain binding guidelines for their application
in addition to restarting previous directives. Since then, civil society has
used the ruling as a tool to keep an eye on the state’s adherence to
constitutional rights, and it has been referenced in various high court
decisions and Public Interest Litigations concerning torture in detention.
Impact
on Society and Politics
Many
state governments released action plans for the installation of surveillance
equipment as a result of this judgment, which gained national attention. However,
full-scale implementation has been impeded by delays and justifications about financial
and infrastructure constraints. Civil rights organizations have also used the
ruling to advocate for increased transparency and a decrease in human rights
abuses.
At
the same time, worries were expressed regarding privacy concerns, the potential
for selective deletion or manipulation of video, and the possible misuse of
surveillance data. As a result, the ruling also sparked significant discussions
about technological accountability and data governance.
CRITICAL
AND PERSONAL ANALYSIS
The
Supreme Court’s ruling in the case is sensible and forward-thinking. It addresses
the lack of accountability in custodial settings, a fundamental structural flaw
in India’s judicial system. The court actively contributed to the execution of
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution by turning earlier
guidelines into legally binding directives.
This
ruling might have gone further, though, by creating independent state or
federal monitoring committees to check for compliance. Furthermore, even though
installation was mandated, the court did not specify explicit sanctions for
non-compliance, which could lessen the decision’s long-term impact.
Strengths
and Weaknesses
Strengths: Constitutional safeguards in settings involving
detention.
Strikes
a balance between rights-based governance and surveillance.
Creates
directions that are enforceable and observable.
Weaknesses: Lacks a framework for sanctions for
non-implementation.
Mechanisms
for oversight and redress are not well defined.
Does
not fully address the risks of data misuse or protection.
Other
Results
A possible implementation plan supported by central government funding and monitored by an impartial organization, such as the NHRC, might have been an alternative. Additionally, making it legally required to alert detainees to the existence of CCTV cameras may act as a disincentive to subject them to coercive interrogation. In order to prevent tampering, the decision could have included specific guidelines for data security, retention, and audit trails.
CONCLUSION
The
Supreme Court’s growing role in addressing institutional gaps where legislative
and executive responses have fallen short is reflected in the Paramvir Singh
Saini ruling. The mandatory installation of CCTV cameras represents a shift in
fundamental rights protection from symbolic to substantive.
Concluding
Remarks
The
ruling represents an attempt to address violence against inmates and encourage
responsibility. Despite being a powerful legal step, its full impact will
require ongoing political will, infrastructure support, and active
participation from civil society. Judicial vigilance must continue to ensure
that surveillance mechanisms serve justice rather than control as technology
and human rights increasingly intersect.
Author
Name: Rohan Meena
Course:
B.A. LL.B.
Year
of Study: 4th Year
Institution:
Manipal University, Jaipur