A bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted these submissions and instructed relevant authorities, including the Chief Secretary, to make a decision on the matter promptly.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday(August 27) directed the Chief Secretary to respond to BJP MLA Abhay Verma‘s complaints regarding the selective installation of CCTV cameras across Laxmi Nagar.
A bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted these submissions and instructed relevant authorities, including the Chief Secretary, to make a decision on the matter promptly.
Advocate Santosh Tripathi, representing the Delhi Government, refuted the allegations, stating that the claims were politically driven.
Verma, the BJP representative from Laxmi Nagar, claimed that a survey conducted by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) recommended the installation of 2,066 CCTV cameras in the area. However, he alleged that the installation was biased, favoring areas represented by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders.
His constituency consists of four municipal wards—three of which are held by BJP and one by AAP—and he contends that most CCTV cameras have been installed in the AAP-controlled ward.
Verma’s plea argues that the AAP-led Delhi Government has been discriminatory in the camera installation process, prioritizing areas represented by AAP leaders while neglecting BJP-controlled wards. Despite Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia’s announcement of 1,40,000 CCTV cameras to be installed across the city, Verma claims his constituency was unfairly excluded.
Through his legal counsel, Advocate Satya Ranjan Swain, Verma argued that while an AAP councillor’s request for 1,000 cameras in her ward was quickly approved, similar requests for other wards in Laxmi Nagar have been ignored, negatively impacting safety and law enforcement in the area.
The petition seeks a court directive to ensure an equitable distribution of CCTV cameras across Laxmi Nagar and challenges the current approval process that requires further ministerial consent after an Assembly proposal is passed.
This process, the petitioner asserts, grants excessive discretion to the minister, often disadvantaging opposition-held constituencies and hindering their development.
