SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Gautam Navlakha – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9216 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 26-04-2022 in CRLWP No. 3116 of 2021 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Decided On : 18-11-2022
House Arrest - Safeguards for House Arrest - The court ordered additional safeguards to be implemented for the house arrest of the petitioner, including the sealing of certain exits and the installation of CCTV cameras.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered an interlocutory application for the vacation of an order dated 29.09.2022 and 10.11.2022 related to the house arrest of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that additional safeguards needed to be engrafted to the existing orders, including the sealing of certain exits and the installation of CCTV cameras, and directed the NIA to implement these safeguards within 24 hours.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's objections to certain actions by the NIA, such as sealing the kitchen door and the installation of CCTV cameras, and the court's consideration of these objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's submissions and objections, as well as the directions given to the NIA to implement additional safeguards for the house arrest.
Final Decision: The interlocutory application was disposed of, and the court directed the NIA to implement the additional safeguards for the house arrest within 24 hours.
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General. Also heard Ms. Nithya Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in the special leave petition).
2. We are not inclined to entertain the application for vacation of order dated 29.09.2022 and 10.11.2022.
3. Interlocutory Application will stand dismissed.
I.A. No. 176263/2022
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that certain further safeguards need to be engrafted which must be read as an addition to what we have already ordered by orders dated 29.09.2022 and 10.11.2022.
5. It is inter alia stated as follows:
'5. Even otherwise, a CCTV camera has already been placed at the main entrance to the hall wherein the Petitioner is sought to be kept under house arrest. Additionally, the other exit towards the ground floor from the kitchen has already been locked, and the Petitioner has no objection if the exit is sealed by the NIA. The Petitioner had been in the process of having a CCTV camera placed at this point, when the NIA objected and sought to have the entire kitchen sealed and a gas stove placed inside the main hall. Needless to say, this would constitute a fire hazard and would also risk jeopardizing the Petitioner's health due to fumes emitted from cooking.'
6. As far as this aspect is concerned, we record the submission of the SLP petitioner that the petitioner has no objection in the NIA sealing the kitchen door leading to the exit point. NIA is entirely free to seal the kitchen door leading to the exit point. Needless to say, this would not entitle the NIA to close the door between the hall and the kitchen.
7. Another concern raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General is that on the first floor, there is a grill and it can easily be opened. We direct that NIA can lock the grill and keep the key also with themselves.
8. The petitioner submits that apart from the CCTV camera which is put on the northern side, a CCTV camera subsequently has already been put by the SLP petitioner on the southern entrance as well.
9. We make it clear the orders shall be given effect to without any fail within 24 hours from the date of the receipt/uploading of the copy of this order.
10. It will be open to the NIA to move the DVR used to monitor the working of the two new CCTV cameras, installed on the first floor from out of the library building where it is presently located to the place of choice of the NIA.
11. We record the absence of any objection of the SLP petitioner to the shifting of the DVR.
12. Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
AI
The court has the authority to order additional safeguards for house arrest, including the sealing of exits and the installation of CCTV cameras, to ensure the safety and security of the petitioner.
Relief not sought in pleadings should not be granted, as it denies the opposing party the chance to contest, potentially leading to injustice.
Granting liberty to place CCTV cameras for security and risk assessment based on the court's view.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.