It is perfectly in order and in the fitness of things that the Orissa High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Registrar Judicial, Orissa High Court, Cuttack vs The State of Odisha & Ors in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 23735 of 2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 23.12.2024 while dealing with a suo motu PIL has firmly ordered the State Government of Odisha and the State police authorities to install CCTV cameras in all police stations as well as police outposts across the State by the end of March 2025. This leading case pertains to the illegal detention and alleged custodial torture that was meted out in the worst unprofessional manner by the police to an Army Officer from 22 Sikh Regiment and to his female friend who is a practising lawyer and who was accompanying him as was shown in all news channels portraying police in poor light and this all the more necessitates police reforms as was recommended even by the Apex Court in 2006 in Prakash Singh vs Union of India but even after nearly two decades are still lying largely unimplemented. Make no mistake: This cannot be put in the cold storage any longer! It must be disclosed here that this most unfortunate incident occurred in between 02:00 AM to 07:00 AM on September 15, 2024 at Bharatpur police station in the capital city of Bhubaneshwar. While striking the right chord, the Orissa High Court on September 23 had expressed its utmost grave concern over the serious allegations of misbehaviour and assault on the Army Officer and asked the State Government to submit steps taken and pursuant to it, the State Government submitted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) providing a slew of advisories and guidelines to the police officials in case of arrest and interaction with members of the Armed Forces in Police Stations.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr Chakradhari Sharan Singh for a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack comprising of himself and Hon'ble Miss Justice Savitri Ratho sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "The Bharatpur Police Station in the city of Bhubaneswar, the capital of the State of Odisha shot to prominence and widely hit the headlines of both the print and electronic media, for wrong reasons, in relation to a disturbing occurrence that had taken place in the premises of the police station on 15th September, 2024. We have considered it just and equitable not to refer to the allegations and counter allegations concerning the said incident in the present order as that may influence the matters which are pending police investigation and, the inquiry ordered by the State government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court."
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, "The fact which was found to be disturbing was that an army officer along with his fiancée had gone to the Police Station on 15.09.2024 late in the night to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the miscreants, who had allegedly misbehaved with them. What happened inside the police Station with them or what did the duo do with the police personnel are subject matter of investigation/inquiry. The Bharatpur Police lodged an FIR against the said army officer and his fiancée registered as Bharatpur P.S. Case No.640 of 2024, alleging commission of various cognizable offences including the offence of attempt to murder the police personnel in the police station. The officer's fiancée was arrested. The army officer and his fiancée were unarmed."
Briefly stated, the Division Bench then while continuing in the same vein states in para 3 that, "Based on a letter dated 18.09.2024 addressed to the Chief Justice by the Lieutenant General PS Shekhawat, AVSM, SM, General Officer Commanding & Colonel of the MECH INF REGT, Madhya Bharat Area and his meeting with the Chief Justice at the residence on 17.09.2024, prior to making of the said communication dated 18.09.2024, suo motu cognizance of the incident was taken and this case, in the nature of Public interest Litigation came to be registered. The contents of the said communication dated 18.09.2024 of Mr. Shekhawat is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. I am writing to bring to your attention, a grave incident that occurred at Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 15 September, 2024, where the prestige of a serving Army Officer was demeaned and the modesty and dignity of his fiancée , x x x x x .
2. The unfortunate incident took place when the Army Officer along with his fiancé went to the police station to file a complaint against miscreants who had misbehaved with the couple at approximately 0100 hours on the day of the incident. Instead of extending the expected protection and support, the officers on duty acted in a manner unbecoming of their position. They not only humiliated the lady but also molested her and also disrespected the Army Officer by putting him under custody without any charge for almost 14 hours. The medical inspection of the lady also indicates grave injuries, which point to manhandling by the police personnel. The Bharatpur Police Station does not have a CCTV installed which is violative of Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions. The police actions and their purported statements are manipulative and aimed at concealing the police brutality on the lady and the officer.
3. Sir, the actions of the police personnel have deeply shaken the faith of the victims and also the military fraternity as a whole in the law enforcement system. This is evident from the wide coverage of the incident, not only on the main stream media but also the outrage of netizens across all social media platforms. While the officer was later released on intervention by the military authorities on the night of 15 September, the lady is still in judicial custody. Her medical examination was done at Institute of Medical Science and SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, which indicates reasonable injuries, but a subsequent medical done at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar was manipulated and shows no such injuries. The manipulated medical reports were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, thus, forging evidence as well as misleading the judiciary. Such blatant manipulation and tampering of evidence is violative of her basic rights. I am enclosing the medical documents and photographs of her injury for perusal of your lordship. The arbitrary manner in which the lady was put through medical examination as also the hastily conducted hearing in front of the Magistrate on 15th September are indicative of gross travesty of justice and to an extent, manipulation of evidence.
4. Sir, we are of the opinion that the law has been violated on numerous counts. In the first instance a serving Army Officer was placed under custody without any offence and also without informing the Army Authorities. Secondly, the couple who had approached the police station for lodging a complaint, were denied their rights and instead a FIR was framed against the lady. In addition, the lady was sexually abused and manhandled. She was also subjected to physical torture. Subsequently, while in jail the lady was denied medical assistance when she complained of pain in her jaw and hip due to the manhandling she had sustained. The jail doctor too diagnosed suspected fracture of jaw but the jail authorities paid no heed to his advice. It was on the intervention of the Hon'ble Cuttack High Court that her medical examination and medical treatment is being done at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. Denying basic medical assistance is grossly inhuman and violation of Human Rights of any individual. The lady was sexually abused by Mr. Dinakrushna Mishra, the IIC of Bharatpur Police Station and manhandled by the lady SI at the Police Station.
5. On intervention by the Army Authorities, the case has been handed over to the Crime Branch of the Orissa Police and an independent enquiry constituted. The lady, however, continues to remain in judicial custody."
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 4 that, "There is no clue whether any person, other than the police personnel of the police station, the army officer and his fiancée, was present when the said occurrence had taken place in the police station. This observation, however, should not be construed as our finding on this point, since the matter is under investigation by the Police and is being inquired into by a Commission of Inquiry. From the latter part of the present order, it can be seen that admittedly there was no CCTV camera installed in the police station. There was, thus, no clue as to what must have happened within the premises of the police station because of which the persons who had gone to lodge a criminal case stood implicated in the Bharatpur P.S. Case No.640 of 2024, with accusation of commission of offence of attempt to murder the police personnel in the police station."
Quite significantly, the Division Bench points out in para 18 that, "As can be seen from the facts noted above, the dark side of the incident is truly shocking which reveals a situation where the two individuals who had gone to the police station to register a case stood implicated in a criminal case of attempt to murder the police personnel of the police station. Further, there is manifest administrative failure on the part of the State in not installing CCTV facilities in the police station, more so, in the capital of the State, which could have easily revealed the truth. We cannot, however, ignore that realizing the lapse the State and its officials in the present case, in our opinion, have acted promptly and with this Court's intervention satisfactory target has been achieved, not only in installation of the CCTV cameras in the police stations, their relocation, maintenance and integration in the Central Monitoring System (CMS) of the State Police Headquarters, Cuttack. As it emerges from the last affidavit filed by Mr. Gangwar, 36 districts in the State of Odisha, the task of connecting 36 districts in the State of Odisha to the CMS through Video Management System (VMS) has already been accomplished and the rest of the two districts, the Court expects, must have been connected by now."
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 19 that, "We have been informed that not only in the police stations, the work of installation of CCTV cameras in 95 police outposts has been taken up by Odisha Computer Application Center (OCAC) as on 11.11.2024. The OCAC has been asked by the State Government to complete the work of installation of CCTV cameras in the police outposts by 31.03.2025."
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 20 what constitutes the cornerstone and heartbeat of this notable judgment postulating that, "In view of the facts which have emerged, as have been noted in the present order, we close the present suo motu PIL with the following observations and directions:-
(i) All the police stations and the police out-posts in the State of Odisha must be fully equipped with aptly placed and duly located CCTV cameras by 31.03.2025. Their integration with the Central Monitoring System (CMS) through Video Management System (VMS) must also be completed by the said date.
(ii) The State Officials/police personnel shall be under the obligation to strictly follow the SOP formulated by the State Government ON ARREST OF AND INTERACTION WITH MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES IN POLICE STATIONS as has been noted hereinabove. The said SOP should be duly publicized and effective steps should be taken to ensure that the police personnel are made aware of the provisions of the SOP. The said SOP should be circulated in Odia language to all the police stations and the police outposts of the State.
(iii) The State Government and the Police Headquarters must ensure that the assurance given to this Court in the affidavits filed by Mr. Gangwar is not breached.
(iv) We reiterate that no observation made in the present order should prejudice the police investigation being conducted by the Crime Branch or the inquiry being held under the provisions of Commission of Inquiry Act."
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 21 that, "Before we part with the present order, we place on record our appreciation for the assistance extended by Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae at the Court's request. Befitting his status as the first law officer of the State, learned Advocate General, Mr. Acharya has assisted this Court with all fairness. Mr. Gangwar discharged his function as an officer of this Court and has acted proactively in obtaining inputs and carrying out the work of installation of CCTV Cameras in the police stations and the police outposts as well as the integration in CMS. We do record our appreciation for his assistance extended to this Court."
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 22 that, "The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
