Prison Excesses: Where Exactly The CC TV Cameras Installed? Why The Life Of CC TV Footages Confines To Four Days Only? SC Seeks Affidavit From Tihar Jail Authorities, Ministry

first_imgTop StoriesPrison Excesses: Where Exactly The CC TV Cameras Installed? Why The Life Of CC TV Footages Confines To Four Days Only? SC Seeks Affidavit From Tihar Jail Authorities, Ministry Mehal Jain31 March 2021 11:15 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has directed the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail to file an affidavit disclosing where exactly the CCTV cameras have been installed and whether the Control Room and the boundary wall of the jail are covered by CCTV cameras or not. The bench headed by Justice U. U. Lalit was dealing with an instance where 3 death row convicts were involved in an incident on 15.03.2021 where in…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has directed the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail to file an affidavit disclosing where exactly the CCTV cameras have been installed and whether the Control Room and the boundary wall of the jail are covered by CCTV cameras or not. The bench headed by Justice U. U. Lalit was dealing with an instance where 3 death row convicts were involved in an incident on 15.03.2021 where in a search conducted of the concerned cell/enclosure, the three inmates including the petitioner were found to be in intoxicated condition. Upon being confronted, force was used and the officials had to use force to contain them. The father of the petitioner received information that the petitioner was badly beaten inside the prison where he is presently lodged. In the Mulakat arranged at the instance of the father, the petitioner had to be brought in, supported by two persons.In the premises, the bench had required Shri Satish Kumar, Addl. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to visit the concerned cell/enclosure in Tihar Jail, Delhi and to make an appropriate report. “The Judge may interview the petitioner and such other persons as he deems appropriate. He is also at liberty to watch CCTV footage of the area in question, if available”, it was said in the order.Noting that no CCTV footage is stated to be available, the bench iterated that in keeping with the directions issued by various courts from time to time and particularly in the light of the directions issued in the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), the Jail Authorities are obliged to install CCTV cameras at various places in the jail.”According to Mr. Raj Kumar, Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jail, who was connected through video conferencing, CCTV camera has been installed at the medical dispensary. However, according to him, the life of CCTV footage is only four days and as of now, no footage is available”, recorded the bench.In order to have all the relevant facts on record, the bench directed the Jail Superintendent to file an affidavit by 05.04.2021 disclosing all the steps undertaken by him in connection with the incident that occurred on 14.03.2021. It shall also disclose under what circumstances, materials, such as, tobacco pouches or any other contraband/such things find their way inside the jail premises and what kind of preventive and other measures are being taken by the jail authorities.”The affidavit shall also disclose the make of CCTV camera which have been installed which according to Mr. Raj Kumar does not have life greater than four days for CCTV footage; so also about the time lines adhered to and required for installing CCTV cameras and the budgetary allocation made for such installations”, ordered the bench. Moreover, with regard to the budgetary allocation and the kind of cameras installed in the jail premises, an affidavit is also to be filed by the concerned official from the Home Ministry of the respondent-State with explanation as to why the life of CCTV footages is confined only to four days.On his visit, the aforesaid ADJ had observed that petitioner-accused Rahul was unable to walk properly. The Jail Superintendent was, therefore, asked to get accused Rahul medically examined and to furnish Certificate. “No such documents pertaining to his medical examination are placed on record”, the bench noted. Further, the medical report dated 20.03.2021 under the signature of Medical Officer In-charge shows that the patient was planned for x-ray, but the relevant x-ray in that behalf was also not placed on record.The bench noted that the punishment Ticket issued to the petitioner and the others shows that they were taken to jail OPD for medical treatment. However, the relevant certificates or reports of the concerned date are not placed on record. “The hand-written portion below the Punishment ticket shows that punishment of withdrawing mulakat alongwith phone and canteen facility was inflicted upon the concerned inmates. Such imposition of punishment was not in keeping with the relevant provisions”, the bench further said.The Supreme Court had earlier this month pulled up the Union Government for seeking more time regarding the installation of CCTV cameras in the offices of Central probe agencies such as CBI, NIA, NCB etc.On December 2, 2020, a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman had issued directions to install CCTV cameras in all police stations across the country to check instances of custodial torture. The Central Government was directed to install CCTVs in the offices of Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), National Investigation Agency(NIA), Enforcement Directorate(ED), Narcotics Control Bureau(NCB), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office(SFIO).The matter was posted on March 2 for reporting compliance. Before that, the Central Government had circulated a letter seeking adjournment.Expressing displeasure at the letter seeking adjournment, Justice Nariman told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “We are getting a distinct impression that you are dragging your feet. What kind of letter you have circulated?”.The Solicitor General replied that adjournment was sought having regard to the ‘ramifications’ of the order.”What ramifications? We are not concerned about the ramifications”, Justice Nariman shot back. “This concerns the rights of the citizens. This concerns the rights of citizenry under Article 21 of the Constitution. We are not accepting the excuses given in the letter”, the judge added.Click Hear To Download/Read Order Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more