CCTVs In Police Stations Deliberately Kept Non-Functional: Bombay HC
1. Background
Police stations are custodial spaces where individuals’ fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) are most vulnerable.
Installation of CCTV cameras is mandated by several state and central guidelines to ensure:
Accountability of police officials.
Evidence of conduct during interrogation or custody.
Protection against abuse or human rights violations.
Despite these guidelines, it was noticed that many police stations either had non-functional cameras or were deliberately switched off during critical periods.
2. Legal Principles
Right to Life Includes Right to Dignity
Under Article 21, the right to life includes protection against torture, ill-treatment, or harassment in police custody.
CCTV cameras serve as a safeguard against violation of fundamental rights.
Accountability of Public Authorities
Police officers are public servants, accountable under:
Article 14 (Equality before law)
Article 21 (Right to life and liberty)
Non-functional CCTVs breach the principle of accountability.
Preventive Mechanism Against Misconduct
The Court emphasized that non-functional cameras encourage misconduct, making it difficult to investigate complaints of abuse.
3. Case Law / Judicial Observations
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Singh (2018) – Bombay HC
Court held that CCTV recordings are vital for monitoring police conduct and that non-functional cameras cannot be justified.
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1988) – Supreme Court
Emphasized the need for monitoring custodial detention to prevent human rights violations.
Highlighted that mechanisms like CCTV are essential for transparency.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) – Supreme Court
Laid down reforms for police accountability, including installation of monitoring systems in police stations.
Reinforced that failure to follow these directives is a violation of citizen rights.
Bombay High Court Observations (Recent Case)
Court observed that keeping CCTVs deliberately non-functional amounts to gross negligence.
Directed immediate restoration and regular maintenance of all CCTV systems.
Emphasized disciplinary action against responsible officers if cameras are tampered with deliberately.
4. Key Takeaways from Bombay HC
| Aspect | Observation / Directive |
|---|---|
| Purpose of CCTV | Ensure accountability, prevent custodial violations, safeguard rights |
| Responsibility | Police authorities must ensure cameras are functional at all times |
| Consequence of non-functioning | Encourages misconduct, violates Article 21 |
| Court Action | Ordered repair, maintenance, monitoring, and strict compliance |
| Accountability | Disciplinary action for deliberate non-functioning |
5. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court reinforced that CCTV cameras are not optional but mandatory tools for ensuring transparency and accountability in police stations. Deliberate non-functioning of cameras violates fundamental rights, and the Court stressed the need for strict compliance and monitoring.
RELATED Blog
0 comments