Back
Can Police Deny CCTV Access to ? Says No.
In a significant ruling that reinforces over police stations, the has held that police officials cannot deny immediate access to to a appointed in a matter. Justice Virinder Aggarwal, while disposing of a petition filed by Lal Chand alleging of his wife and daughter by the of , also directed the state police to establish a to ensure such access is granted without procedural delays.
A Petition and a Missing
The court’s decision came after a ’s surprise visit to the police station on , revealed that the alleged detenues were not found on the premises. However, the petitioner and four local witnesses gave statements claiming that Joginder Kaur and Mamta Kamboj had been forcibly picked up from a relative’s house the previous evening and taken to the police station. The ’s report also noted that the petitioner’s brother, an in the , was found detained at the station during the inspection, and another person alleged similar treatment.
When the requested the for the relevant period, the declined, citing lack of password and the need for senior officers’ permission. This refusal prompted the court to address a recurring procedural difficulty that could frustrate the purpose of inspections.
Court: No Can Frustrate Judicial Warrants
Justice Aggarwal observed that “the ordinary requirement of obtaining permission from superior officers or accessing the system through an officer who possesses the requisite password or credentials, though applicable in the normal course, cannot be permitted to operate as a to the immediate execution of a .” He emphasized that timely access to is “crucial for objectively ascertaining the presence, movement or custody of the alleged detenue,” especially given the possibility that detenues might be shifted before or during an inspection.
Without making a final finding on the allegations, the court noted that the material on record, including the petitioner’s categorical version, eyewitness statements, and the unexplained non-production of , “cannot be brushed aside.” It accordingly directed the , to conduct a into the alleged of all four persons, to be completed within 15 days. The inquiry will examine from both the police station and the premises where the detenues were allegedly shifted, and if is established, the may recommend against the responsible officials.
Directions for a Round-the-Clock CCTV Access Mechanism
In a separate but equally important part of the order, the court issued general directions to all in the state to modify existing protocols within one month to incorporate a specific mechanism for immediate CCTV access during warrant execution. The directions require the designation of a in each district, available round-the-clock through a dedicated communication mechanism, including WhatsApp or email where feasible. The concerned or police official must immediately activate this mechanism upon the ’s arrival, without requiring the to await the ordinary departmental chain of permissions.
The court made clear that “any deliberate refusal, obstruction, avoidable delay, non-production of relevant or withholding of material information by any police official… shall be viewed seriously” and may invite departmental or legal action. The , has been directed to ensure immediate preservation of the relevant footage.
The Verdict: Balancing and Police Procedure
Since the alleged detenues had returned home by , the immediate object of the petition was satisfied, and the petition was disposed of with the above directions. The court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of directing an inquiry and should not be construed as a final expression on culpability.
This ruling underscores the High Court’s commitment to ensuring that judicial warrants in matters are executed effectively and that , which can be crucial evidence in allegations of , is preserved and made accessible without delay.
