Guj HC schools cops, asks under which law they stop people from videography inside police station
Ahmedabad: A video of Justice Nirzar S Desai of the Gujarat High Court sharply questioning the state government over the legality of prohibiting videography inside police stations has gone viral on social media, reigniting the debate on citizens' rights and police accountability.
In a pointed exchange during court proceedings, Justice Desai asked the state’s lawyer:
"Tell me under which section videography is prohibited. Today we are living in an era of transparency. Assuming police are doing something illegal and a citizen intends to videograph it – which provision of law empowers you to stop someone from taking videography? Under which provision of law have you stopped the accused from video recording?"
The video has sparked widespread public interest, especially in the context of earlier legal interpretations around filming inside police premises.
View this post on Instagram
Background: Courts on videography in police stations
The question of whether video recording inside a police station is a punishable offence has previously been addressed by the Bombay High Court. In Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2015), the Aurangabad bench ruled that such recording does not fall under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which deals with spying. The court noted that police stations are not categorized as "prohibited places" under Section 2(8) of the Act. Therefore, secretly recording inside a police station cannot be treated as an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
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.
PIL in SC seeks SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of electoral roll manipulation
New Delhi: A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a former judge to probe allegations of large-scale manipulation of voters’ lists in the Bengaluru Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
The petition, filed by Advocate Rohit Pandey through Advocate Kausar Raza Faridi, also sought directions restraining any further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls until compliance with the Court’s directions and an independent audit. It further sought binding guidelines to ensure transparency in the preparation and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms to detect duplicate or fictitious entries.
The petitioner cited Rahul Gandhi’s press conference on August 7 and claimed to have independently verified the allegations, pointing to 40,009 invalid voters and 10,452 duplicate entries in Bengaluru Central. Instances of voters holding multiple EPIC numbers across states, identical addresses and fathers’ names, and around 80 voters registered at a single small house were also highlighted.
The plea argued that such manipulation undermines Articles 324, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, distorts the principle of “one person, one vote,” and infringes the rights to equality and democratic participation under Articles 14 and 21.
