CCTVs in police stations: SC asks Union home secretary to appear before it on Tuesday
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has asked the Union home secretary to remain present before it on Tuesday so that appropriate assistance could be drawn from him in implementation of the scheme for installation of CCTVs in police stations.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Monday passed the order while hearing a suo motu case over lack of functional CCTVs in police stations.
During the hearing, the bench asked the counsel appearing for the Centre about a recent media report over removal of CCTV cameras made by a Chinese firm which are installed at several places citing security issue.
Referring to the report, Justice Mehta said the Centre itself has given instructions to take down the cameras taken from a neighbouring country because they are capturing data and sending it there.
"Now, the government has issued instructions to remove particular cameras," the bench observed.
Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, appearing for the Centre, said no formal order has yet been passed in this regard.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, who is assisting the top court as an amicus curiae in the matter, told the bench that most of the states have done installation of CCTVs and they are in the process of setting up centralised dashboards.
When Dave said that Kerala has the best set up, Justice Nath said, "If you say that Kerala has to best set up, why can't it be followed up by other states?"
The bench said this should be discussed by the authorities.
Thakare said 60 per cent funding is by the Centre.
The bench was informed that an under secretary level officer had attended the meeting which was held to deliberate upon the feasibility, modalities and implementation framework of the issues flagged in the orders passed by the apex court earlier.
The bench expressed its dissatisfaction and told Thakare, "We are passing orders and you are sending an under secretary level officer to attend the meeting?"
The law officer assured the court that a high-level official would attend the meeting.
"Let this matter come up tomorrow again. The home secretary, Union of India, to remain present before this court so that appropriate assistance can be drawn from him in implementation of the scheme that is being monitored by this court," the bench said.
On February 26, the apex court directed the Centre and others to participate in a meeting to deliberate upon the feasibility, modalities and implementation framework of the issues, including creation of a centralised dashboard and standardisation of CCTV infrastructure in police stations.
The top court had earlier directed registration of a suo motu case over lack of functional CCTVs in police stations after taking cognisance of a media report.
The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras across police stations to check human rights abuses.
In December 2020, the top court directed the Centre to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
It said that states and Union Territories should ensure that CCTV cameras were installed at every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception, as well as in areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part was left uncovered.
The top court said that CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage.
The court made it mandatory for the Centre, states, and UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for at least one year.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unnao rape case: SC defers hearing on CBI's plea against suspension of Sengar's life term
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday deferred to the first week of May the hearing on a petition filed by the CBI challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sura Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the matter will be taken up after a nine-judge bench completes hearing on the Sabarimala review proceedings.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sengar, raised the issue of non-hearing of the pleas in another case related to the alleged custodial death of the victim's father in the Delhi High Court and said that a 10-year jail term was handed down to Sengar in that case.
"Ten years is likely to be completed soon and yet no substantial hearing has taken place in the high court. I should get bail in this matter," he said.
It was alleged by him that even the victim's lawyer is taking adjournments in the high court.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the victim, said that only one adjournment has been sought in the high court.
The CJI noted the consent of both sides that no adjournment will be sought in the Delhi High Court in another case involving Sengar as one of the accused.
"The lawyers will extend full cooperation (in the HC)," the CJI said.
On December 29, last year, the top court stayed the Delhi High Court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he shall not be released from custody.
The bench, hearing the CBI's plea challenging the high court order, said that substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require consideration.
The apex court had also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response on the CBI's plea.
The bench said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily, when a convict or an undertrial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the high court, such an order should not be stayed by it without hearing such a person.
It noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.
"In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order," the bench had said.
The top court said various substantial questions of law have arisen for its consideration in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the high court order, saying it was a "horrific rape" of a minor child.
The Delhi High Court had, in its December 23, 2025, order, said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5 (C) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant) of the POCSO Act but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a "public servant" under Section 21 of the IPC.
The high court had suspended the jail term of Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case, till the pendency of his appeal, saying he had already served seven years and five months in prison.
The high court order has sparked criticism from a section and there have been protests by the victim, her family and activists.
Sengar had challenged a December 2019 trial court verdict in the case. He had, however, remained in jail since he was also serving 10 years' imprisonment in the custodial death case of the victim's father and has not been granted bail in that case.
The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Sengar's appeal against his conviction in the case of the custodial death of the survivor's father is also pending, where he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial time in jail.
In its plea filed in the apex court, the CBI referred to its verdict in the L K Advani case in which it held that anyone who holds public office, like MPs or MLAs, would be deemed a "public servant".
It contended that the high court erred by declaring that Sengar, an MLA when the offence was committed, was not a "public servant" to be prosecuted under POCSO and granted him bail.
