Back
Orders ₹65K Compensation From SHO Over CCTV Lapses, Calls Officials 'Liars'
In a strongly worded hearing, the on Wednesday pulled up police officials over the failure to produce CCTV footage from a police station in Deoria district, ordering ₹65,000 in compensation to be recovered from the salary of the Station House Officer (SHO). The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant was hearing a alleging that four individuals were illegally detained at the for periods ranging from a few days to ten days between and .
The Court's ire was directed not only at the missing recordings but also at what it perceived as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. At one point, Justice Sreedharan orally referred to the officials as a "bunch of liars," questioning the SHO about the circumstances under which the CCTV system allegedly stopped functioning and was subsequently repaired. The Court noted that no had been made regarding the repair, casting serious doubt on the police's version of events.
A 'Bunch of Liars': Court's Stinging Observations
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly pressed the SHO for answers.
"If the camera was working from
, where is the recording? You were the SHO for 2 months. Where is the recording?"
the Court asked. The SHO claimed the system developed a fault on
, but could not explain the absence of a GD entry. The Superintendent of Police (SP) Deoria, who was also summoned, stated that he had not been informed about the malfunction. When the SP apologized, Justice Sreedharan retorted,
"Don't apologize to the Court. Apologize to the people."
The Court then questioned the SP about the action taken against the SHO.
"Did you suspend him, terminate him? An SHO of a thana who cannot make a GD inquiry must be terminated. He is not fit to be a constable,"
the bench remarked. The SP responded that the SHO had been transferred to the
, but the Court was not satisfied, noting that no formal punishment had been imposed despite the SHO being found guilty of negligence.
Missing Footage and Missing Accountability
The Court's concerns had been flagged in an earlier order dated , where it noted that the state's affidavit referred to the 's mandate requiring CCTV coverage at police stations and stated that ₹46,46,000 had been released for police stations in Deoria district. However, the affidavit did not disclose the date of release. The Court observed that the subsequent actions attributed to the SP were dated —after the High Court's order—suggesting that the authorities acted only in response to the petition.
In today's hearing, the bench also questioned the release of the entire fund despite the work allegedly not being completed.
"Instead of blacklisting them, you released the entire fund… On the basis of assurance, you released the entire amount,"
the Court said, expressing dismay at the lack of oversight.
Compensation and Deterrent
The Court directed the State Government to pay ₹20,000 each to petitioners 2, 3, and 4, and ₹5,000 to petitioner no. 1 for their unlawful detention, totaling ₹65,000. Significantly, the Court ordered that this sum be recovered from the salary of the SHO. This move serves as a strong deterrent, holding individual officers financially accountable for lapses that lead to violations of .
The compensation order underscores the High Court's power in habeas corpus proceedings to remedy and to ensure that state machinery functions within constitutional bounds. By linking the recovery to the SHO's salary, the Court has sent a clear message that negligence in maintaining basic safeguards like CCTV footage will not be tolerated.
Legal Implications and Impact on Policing
This case highlights the critical importance of CCTV systems in police stations, as mandated by the in various judgments. The 's ruling reinforces that the absence of footage will invite strict scrutiny, especially when allegations of arise. The Court's insistence on a GD entry for repairs sets a procedural benchmark that police stations must follow to ensure transparency.
For legal professionals, the judgment serves as a reminder of the robust judicial oversight available in habeas corpus petitions. It also demonstrates how courts can use compensation orders not just as a remedy for victims but also as a tool to enforce accountability within state agencies. The recovery from the SHO's salary adds a personal dimension that may prompt police officers to take their duties more seriously.
Conclusion
The 's ruling in this case is a significant precedent for police accountability and the sanctity of . By calling out officials as "bunch of liars" and ordering compensation to be recovered from the erring officer, the court has reasserted the primacy of constitutional protections over bureaucratic inertia. The case serves as a cautionary tale for police stations across the country to maintain functional CCTV systems and proper record-keeping, lest they face the wrath of the judiciary.
