KAUSHAL V STATE OF HARYANA

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that CCTV cameras should be installed in
every part of police stations including interrogation rooms as per the mandate of the Supreme
Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others

Justice Amol Rattan Singh held that the Supreme Court directives are clear in that no
portion of a police station should be left uncovered by CCTV and interrogation room would
also be naturally covered within the ambit of the top court's order.

"Hence, with the directions issued by the Supreme Court also being to the extent that cameras
be installed at not just entry and exit points and main gates of police stations, but also in all
lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception areas, verandas, out houses, rooms of officials,
outside the lock-up rooms, station hall and in front of the police station compound, as also
outside washrooms and toilets, the obvious implication is that no part of the police stations
would be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance. Naturally therefore, any interrogation room
would also be covered by such directions," the High Court said.

The Court also said that India cannot hide behind the excuse that many other countries are far
more advanced than us and therefore there can be no comparison with the methods adopted
there, in interrogating accused persons here.

"We are the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world and therefore any such plea taken would
only seem to be taken as an excuse to not actually adopt contemporary methods of
investigation, including interrogation, rather than taking shortcuts by using third degrees
methods," the High Court underlined.

The single-Judge was hearing a plea filed by gangster Kaushal Chaudhary who alleged that
human right violations were being committed against him in jail.

The petitioner sought several directions from the Court including videography of his
interrogations, medical examination during investigations and appropriate security provided
to him when he is taken outside jail.

In his petition, he also made several allegations of inhumane treatment being meted out to
prisoners in jail and during remand.

Considering these submissions, the Court discussed the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh which made the obvious implication that no
part of the police stations would be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance. Thus, it was
inferred that interrogation rooms would also be covered by these directions.

The Director Generals of Police (DGP), Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh were thus, directed
to file affidavits as to whether the directions of the Supreme Court were being followed.

The Haryana DGP’s argument was that there is no provision for such measures in the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court, however, turned down the same reasoning that law declared by the Supreme Court
would be binding as per Article 141 of the Constitution.
“Consequently and obviously, non-compliance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court
in Paramvir Singh Sainis’ case, would amount to contempt of Court and this court would,
naturally, also be bound to ensure that the directions issued by the Supreme Court are actually
carried out at ground level by the States and Union Territory falling within the jurisdiction of
this court,” the High Court said.

Justice Singh did, however, acknowledge that the police face an uphill battle while dealing
with hardened criminals and their work must be highly appreciated, but under the
constitutional scheme and statutory provisions, even the worst criminal cannot be denied fair
procedure.

The Court, therefore, said that the Supreme Court judgment has to be complied with, and
listed the case for further hearing on February 9.

Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai with Advocate Paras Talwar appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeev Anand, AAG Manreet Singh Nagra and AAG Neeraj
Poswal represented the Respondents.