Case Analysis: Paramvir Singh vs Baljit Singh (2020)

Bench – J RF. Nariman, K.M. Joseph. Aniruddha Bose

Date – 2 December 2020

Deciding court – Supreme Court of India

Citation- SLP (Crl) No. 2302 of 2017

Petitoner- Paramvir Singh Saini

Respondent – Baljit Singh & Others

Background Facts

In order to strengthen human rights, several courts have issued decisions directing police stations to install CCTV cameras on their campuses. Several people have died while in police custody as a result of police abuse. A special leave petition was submitted to see if police stations had installed surveillance cameras. The information submitted to the SC missed crucial details such as the number of operational cameras in police stations, the total number of cameras placed, their placements, and how they worked, among other things. The majority of states and territories have not filed for recognition as a Central Oversight Body (COB). The Supreme Court guidelines, first announced in the DK Basu case and then again in Shahfi Mohammad vs Territory of Himachal Pradesh, directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all prisons across the country to check discipline and prevent violations of prisoners human rights. At the same time, the Court stated that state governments should consider installing such CCTV cameras in police stations to protect prisoners from violence. It was not, however, made necessary. The Supreme Court took note of these cases when hearing a case involving custodial torture in July 2020, and ordered that CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations to monitor human rights abuses, that crime scenes be captured.

 Issues

1. How far has the installation of surveillance cameras at police stations made progress?
2. Is the state abided by Section 161(3) of the CrPC?

Provisions Applied

Section 161 (3) of CrPC – A police officer has the authority to reduce any statement provided to him during an examination to writing. The Court argued whether any comments made by anyone in police custody are free of coercion, as well as whether all police stations should be installed with CCTV cameras.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – A person in custody who has been subjected to abuse can file a claim with the State Human Rights Commission for compensation. The complainant is entitled to a copy of the CCTV footage from the site where the violation occurred if he or she accuses a police officer or an official from agencies. 

Judgement

• The Supreme Court directed to constitute the oversight committee at State level and district level, also their duties.
• SC also told to install CCTV camera in each and every police station within the state and union territory which should be equipped with night vision and should have audio and video footage. Legislators in the state should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each police station in their area. CCTV cameras should be installed at all entry and exit points, the police headquarters main door, lock-ups, all passageways, meeting rooms, Inspector’s room, Sub Inspector’s room, areas outside the lock-up room, and the station corridor to ensure that no part of the police headquarters is left exposed.  A bench ordered the Centre to “install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of” the CBI, NIA, NCB, according to their judgement.
• The recording system should be set up so that the data is kept for at least 18 months.
• Large posters should be made outside and inside the police stations which has to be in English, Hindi and vernacular language. The poster should inform citizens that they are under CCTV surveillance.
• Allocation of the proper funds should be done by the state and union territory financial department. It was also directed cases related to custodial death should not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission but also to human rights quote which must be set up in each district of every state and union territory.

Conclusion

The ruling highlights human rights and the abolition of custodial torture, which is a violation of the Right to Life in and of itself. Justice R.F. Nariman’s most recent decision represents a great record in restoring human rights.

Article 21, “Right to life and personal liberty,” covers a wide range of human rights as well as the abolition of imprisonment abuse. This decision places a high value on the fundamental right to life. This Supreme Court ruling acknowledges this fact and corrects faults in the most severe legislation, which is supported in the name of national security. By giving the victim a copy of the video footage in which he was subjected to apparent force, the judgement supports natural justice principles.

Probable Future Events

This decision, along with a few others, act as a guideline to ensure everybody is treated equitably. Court judgments serve as precedent for future cases, and the ground on which justice is given is determined by the court’s decision. So, in order to put in place an effective process to prevent civil rights violations, torture, and deaths in police custody, the Supreme Court has published a comprehensive set of instructions. This will help to solve the coming cases regarding the police brutality where the CCTV footage will be a witness for the victim side, with the heavy CCTV surveillance, the cases regarding the brutality in the police custody will decrease.

Furthermore, because this judgement has been recorded by the Court, it may have long-term implications in protecting human rights. During the Covid-19 period, we witnessed an endless number of extreme forces being used by the police on the citizens of this country. I hope that, with such restrictions in place, the use of force at police stations will come to an end in the future.

The article has been contributed by Vatsala Vatsa, a student at NMIMS Bangalore.