JUDGEMENT SUMMARY: Rahul vs Delhi MHA
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25.03.2021
JUDGES: Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph
PARTIES
Appellant - RAHUL
Respondents - STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.
SUMMARY: Supreme Court seeks details of CCTV installations inside Tihar Jail complex after three death row convicts found intoxicated
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Article 21 of the constitution
OVERVIEW
1. The bench was headed by justice U.U. Lalit invest the court was dealing with an instance where three death row prisoners were involved in an incident on 15th March 2021. And when a search was conducted the three prisoners were found in a condition of intoxication. The officials had to use force to contain them. The father of the petitioner got to know about the incident that his son was badly beaten inside the prison and the petition was brought in supported by the two persons.
2. In pursuit of the truth the bench acquired additional district judge this Hazari Shri Satish Kumar to visit the concerned person and make a report about the incident and he can also interview the prisoners or take a look at CCTV footage, if available.
3. Upon discovering that there were no CCTV footages available the jail, the court stated the direction issued in the latest judgement of the apex court in Paramveer Singh Saini vs Baljeet Singh (2020) in which it was held that jail authorities are obligated to install cctv cameras at various places in the jail.
4. Upon questioning via video conferencing the jail superintendent said that there is a CCTV present in the medical dispensary, but its footage life is only four days and now no footage is available for the incident.
5. The when is directed the superintendent of Jail to find an affidavit by 5th of April 2021 regarding the incident and shall also disclose under what circumstances questionable materials like tobacco pouches or other contrabands found their way inside the jail premises and what measures are being taken against it.
6. The bench further ordered that the affidavit should also disclose the installment of CCTV cameras, and the budgetary allocation made for such installations.
7. The Additional district judge, on his visit observed that the prisoners were taken to the jail OPD for medical attention. However, such reports were not mentioned in the incident report and the petitioner Rahul was still injured and was having difficulty in walking.
8. The Supreme Court earlier this year had asked the central government seeking fir more time regarding the CCTV camera installation cameras in the offices of Central agencies like CBI, NIA, NCB, ED, NCB, DRI, SFIO, etc.
9. Justice Nariman observed that - "This concerns the right of the citizens. This concerns the rights of citizens under article 21 of the Constitution. We are not accepting excuses given in the letter."
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
The court in its order held that – “In order to have all the relevant facts on record, we direct as under:
A. Mr. Raj Kumar, The Superintendent of jail is to file an affidavit by 05.04.2021 disclosing all the steps undertaken by him in relation with the incident that occurred on 14th March 2021 and the affidavit shall reveal where exactly the CCTV cameras have been fitted and whether the Control Room and the boundary wall of the jail are covered by CCTV cameras or not. It shall also reveal under what circumstances, such questionable materials, such as, tobacco pouches or any other contraband/such things find their way inside the jail premises and what kind of precautionary and other measures are being taken by the jail authorities.
B. The abovementioned affidavit shall also unveil the make of CCTV camera which have been installed which corresponding to Mr. Raj Kumar does not have life greater than four days for CCTV footage; so also, about the timelines obeyed to and necessity for installing CCTV cameras and the budgetary allotments made for such installations.
C. Regarding the budgetary allocation of the CCTV cameras and the kind of cameras installed in the jail grounds, an affidavit shall also be filed by the involved officials from the Home Ministry of the respondent-State with clarification as to why the life of CCTV footages is restricted to four days only.
D. The court also asked Dr. Vineet, The Medical Officer, Jail Hospital, Tihar Jail as well as Dr. Vivek Dave, Senior Resident in Psychiatry to file their statements stirring upon the issues concerning the present controversy. Copies of the orders approved by this Court shall be transmitted to Dr. Vineet, Medical Officer, Jail Hospital, Tihar Jail as well as Dr. Vivek Dave, Senior Resident in Psychiatry by the Registry of this Court.”
The filing of statements and affidavit must be completed in the Registry of the Court before 5th April 2021.
“We must record the submission advanced by Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, learned advocate appearing for the father of the deceased. It was submitted by her that no compensation has been made over to the father of the victim and despite various requests, the concerned authorities have not made any responses.
We need not go into the question as Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has assured this Court that she will personally investigate the matter and see to it that the needful is done in the matter. List for further consideration on 08.04.2021 as first item on the Board.”
CONCLUSION
This case was brought before the court when three prisoners of Tihar jail, New Delhi were found in intoxicated condition involving incident in the jail. The presidents were injured and when the court investigated the matter, it was revealed that the gel was not properly covered in a CCTV camera disregarding the earlier guidelines of the Supreme Court. The court issued an order asking the superintendent of the jail to present before the court an affidavit as to how such questionable materials like tobacco, etc found its way inside the jail. And why there is no proper CCTV coverage in the jail. It was further ordered that the jail should be installed with new CCTV cameras which has a greater footage life to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
