Top News Headlines 5th Jan 2022: CCTV Installation In Spas And The Right To Relax

CCTV Installation In Spas And The Right To Relax: Know What The Madras HC Has To Say

• The Madras HC has overruled a single-bench decision given in C.P.Girija vs. Superintendent of Police and Ors. and has stated that installation of CCTV cameras in the private spaces inside the massage parlour would necessarily infringe upon a person’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
• In the instant case titled Payel Biswas vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City and Ors. the Hon’ble Court has observed that the decision in C.P.Girija case given above clearly violates the principles laid down in the Right to Privacy case (K.S.Puttaswamy vs. Union of India) by the Hon’ble SC.
• A day after the passing of the C.P.Girija judgement, a writ petition was disposed of by Justice Swaminathan regarding the grant of a NOC certificate by the police to a spa located in Trichy. The Court also asked the police not to interfere with the functioning of the spa and massage centre if the same is being done in accordance with law. To this, the Government Pleader referred to the single judge decision in C.P.Girija case and about the police frequenting such business premises.
• The Court, while agreeing that a bench cannot take a contrary view to another bench of the same strength (coordinate benches) according to the guidelines laid down in S.Kasi vs. State (AIR 2020 SC) observed that since guidelines with regards to violation of privacy have been laid down by the Supreme Court, reliance can be placed on article 141 of the Constitution (law declared by SC binding on all courts within the territory of India).
• The Hon’ble Court noted that the judgement given in C.P.Girija directs the installation of cameras not in public spaces but in intimate, private spaces. Referring to the decision in K.S.Puttaswamy, the Court observed that any invasion on life or personal liberty ensured under Article 21 would have to meet the requirements of legality, need and proportionality (nexus with the objective). Unless the legislature mandates by law that CCTV cameras ought to be installed in a certain space (here, the private space inside a spa), it would stand in violation of Article 21.
• Referring to the notification issued under Section 373 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, the Court observed that the installation of CCTV cameras was mandated only at the entry and exit point of the premises of the establishment.
• The Court also stressed on an important point, that the scope of the fundamental rights cannot be restricted or curtailed by a Court’s order when the legislature or the executive has already put regulations in place. The same can only be done by the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• Thus, disposing of the writ petition, the Court also directed the authorities to abstain from unnecessary interference with the businesses if the NOC is issued.

Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Incomplete Signature Would Constitute An Offence Under 138 NI Act: J&K&L HC

• In a case titled Parvaiz Ahmed vs. Fida Mohammad Ayoub the Hon’ble J&K&L HC has held that the dishonour of a cheque due to an incomplete signature would be an offence constituted under Section 138 of the NI Act.
• The instant plea was filed by Parvaiz Ahmed and another, challenging the complaint under 138 NI Act, claiming that the cheque was dishonoured due to the incomplete signature which was not covered under 138 NI Act.
• Reliance was placed by the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Tanna vs. Zaheer Siddiqui (2002) SCC wherein the Court had held that the dishonour of cheque due to an incomplete signature would not constitute an offence under 138 NI Act.
• The Court observed in the present case, that at the outset, it appears that section 138 NI Act would be attracted only in the two situations- first, insufficiency of funds and second- the amount exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by that account. But there have been many cases where the Apex Court has interpreted this provision in such a way so as to include within its ambit where dishonour takes place other than these two reasons.
• Reliance was placed by the Court on the decision of the apex Court in Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2012) SCC. The Court also said that the judgement given in Vinod Tana Case was per incuriam. In this case, the Court held that the criminal proceedings in such a situation of cheque dishonour should be allowed to continue.
• Accordingly, the instant appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court.

Breach Of Arnesh Kumar: Delhi HC Sentences Police Officer To One Day Imprisonment

• In a recent case titled Rakesh Kumar vs. Vijayanta arya (DCP) and Ors. the Hon’ble Delhi HC has sentenced a police officer to undergo one day simple imprisonment and to pay a cost of Rs.15,000 to the petitioner for arresting him in violation of the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)SC.
• Taking note of the fact that the charges against the petitioner (accused) were those of criminal breach of trust which warrant an imprisonment upto three years, the same did not allow the police to arrest him in the way that they did.
• According to the order of the SC in the Arnesh Kumar case, a notice under section 41A of CrPC was mandatory. The same was not given to the accused. The guidelines also categorically state that arrest is an exception and instead of arrest, a notice under 41A should be given in cases where imprisonment stipulated is less than 7 years.
• Justice Najmi Waziri, while imposing a cost of Rs.2000 on the said police personnel, also observed that the subsequent release of the accused or his acquittal can never recompense the irreparable loss caused to the reputation and personal liberty of the person who has been illegally arrested in such a manner.
• Observing that the petitioner’s right to personal liberty has been ensured by the Constitution of India, it can only be limited or curtailed by an act of the legislature. The procedure established by the Legislature by enacting section 41A and the guidelines of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar have been blatantly violated in the present case.
• Taking note of the hardship and indignity suffered by the accused, the Court also observed that the humiliation and indignity is not just suffered by the accused, but it is also borne by his entire family. No amount of explanation offered to the neighbours or his subsequent acquittal or discharge would ever restore his tarnished reputation or the reputation of his wife and children.