Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in order to keep a check on human rights abuse at police stations, has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that all rooms in police stations across the state are equipped with CCTV cameras with audio facility within three months.

The court, presided over by single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, passed the order in response to a petition filed by Akhilesh Pandey, who alleged that he was illegally detained and assaulted inside a police station. According to the petitioner, the incident stemmed from a confrontation on September 17, 2023, when residents of a village halted trucks belonging to his company. As he was handling the situation, a police officer (respondent No. 10) demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000, leading to an altercation. As per the petitioner, CCTV footage showed he was taken to Bhalumada Police Station, where he was asked to surrender his belongings. Despite his apology, another police officer (respondent No. 7), took him to a room without CCTV and brutally beat him with a thick bamboo stick. Hearing his screams, other officers and the petitioner's relatives tried to intervene but were forced out. The petitioner was carried out of the station in a severely injured state. It was alleged that the police, led by respondent No. 5, conspired to fabricate evidence by tearing a uniform and inflicting injuries to falsely accuse the petitioner of assault.

The court observed, “it is clear that petitioner was badly beaten by the Police personnel in the presence of respondent no.5, inside the Police Station in a room which was not having CCTV camera. Petitioner was deliberately taken to a room because it was not having CCTV Camera. Therefore, it is clear that the Police personnel were intending to hide their illegal activities of assaulting the petitioner in a Police Station.”

The court also ordered the police officers found guilty, to pay Rs. 1,20,000 as compensation to the petitioner, to be deposited in the court's registry within a month, stating that, “Since, this Court has found that the petitioner was the victim of police atrocities inside the police station, therefore, it is held that he is also entitled for compensation.”

The court referred to the case of D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (2015), where the Supreme Court recommended the phased installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and prisons to prevent human rights violations, Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P., (2018), wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the need for CCTV in police stations and prisons, advocating for an oversight mechanism to review footage and publish findings, and Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021), where the Court criticized compliance affidavits for lacking detail on CCTV status, emphasising the need for transparency regarding the number of installed cameras and their functionality.

In light of the precedents and taking into account the present case, the court observed a failure by the Director General of Police to implement Supreme Court directives for police stations.

In furtherance, the court directed the DGP to immediately conduct an audit of all police stations to identify areas without CCTV coverage and ensure full installation within three months. Reports from district Superintendents of Police (SPs) are to be submitted within a month, confirming the absence of any “black spots” within police stations. The court added, “In future if it is found that in a Police Station an area was left outside the coverage area of CCTV camera, then such lapse shall be considered as Contempt of Court, and action shall be taken against the Superintendent of Police of the said District and also S.H.O. of concerning Police Station for Contempt of Court.”

 

Cause Title: Akhilesh Pandey v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [W.P. No.31360/2023]

Appearance: Advocate Abhishek Pandey – for the petitioner.
Government Advocate Vijayendra Singh Choudhary – for respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Advocate Satyam Agrawal – for respondent No.5.
None for respondents no. 6 to 10 though served.