: While endorsing the effectiveness of CCTVs in police stations to check human rights abuse, the Supreme Court has voiced concern that suspects in custody could manipulate its use and take advantage of the system.
The court was hearing a proposal by amicus curiae Abhishek Manu Singhvi that CCTV cameras should cover all areas of public interaction, lock-ups, detention places and interrogation rooms as a measure to prevent custodial torture.
Mr. Singhvi’s recommendations were part of the efforts by the Supreme Court to collate data from various States, sift through their laws and their responses on custodial deaths and formulate a legal solution. The effort was in response to a 28-year-old PIL filed by D.K. Basu.
“No civilised country should torture its citizens,” Justice T.S. Thakur observed on Wednesday, highlighting that the true character of a democratic country was its adherence to the due process of law.
However, Justice Thakur pointed out a flipside to CCTVs and wondered whether suspects, knowing that they were watched, could use it to pretend they are being ill treated by the police at the station. “Suspects can use them to stage a scene that they are not given food and water,” he told Mr. Singhvi.
In a lighter vein, Justice Thakur added that “matters can go to such a head that the SHO would have to bring him chapattis and chicken curry to satisfy him”.
However, Mr. Singhvi said the idea of having CCTVs installed had gained acceptance in some States. His proposal said Bihar has installed CCTV cameras in all its prisons and 44 police stations.
“Tamil Nadu plans to cover all police stations. Haryana has stated that CCTV cameras should be installed in all police stations, especially at the entrance and in lock-ups. Andaman & Nicobar has already installed them in most police stations, covering all angles, while Puducherry is taking action to do the same. Tripura is replacing the non-functional CCTV cameras installed in its prisons,” the amicus curiae’s proposal said.
The proposal said recordings from the cameras should be directly sent to an intermediate control centre accessible to the State Human Rights Commission concerned, the District Magistrate and other designated persons.
Mr. Singhvi recommended that the court issue directions to file a compliance report in this regard within six months.
