The Orissa High Court expressed concern over a case where a complaint was turned into a case against the victims. The court highlighted the need for transparency in police procedures and called for the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to ensure accountability. This ruling aims to protect citizens’ rights and prevent misuse of power.
Cuttack: In a important ruling that highlights systemic failures in police accountability, the Orissa High Court called for comprehensive reforms to enhance transparency in police operations.
The court expressed concern over a troubling incident where a couple seeking police protection at the Bharatpur Police Station in Bhubaneswar ended up being accused in a serious criminal case.
In its decision on Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 23735 of 2024, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho, mandated immediate measures to address procedural deficiencies, including the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations across Odisha.
The case stemmed from an alarming event on September 15, 2024, when an army officer and his fiancée visited the Bharatpur Police Station late at night to report harassment by miscreants. Instead of receiving assistance, they were accused of attempting to murder police personnel within the station. The fiancée was arrested, and allegations of maltreatment and police misconduct emerged, leading to public outrage.
Lieutenant General P.S. Shekhawat, AVSM, SM, brought the issue to the court’s attention through a formal communication that highlighted procedural violations, evidence tampering, and the lack of CCTV cameras in the police station.
The case raised several systemic and legal concerns:
- Violation of Transparency Mandates: The absence of CCTV cameras at the Bharatpur Police Station violated Supreme Court guidelines aimed at ensuring transparency in police operations.
- Procedural Irregularities: Allegations of police misconduct and the manipulation of medical reports emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural fairness.
- Protection of Armed Forces Personnel: The court scrutinized how armed forces members and their families are treated during police interactions, leading to the creation of a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
The High Court voiced serious concern regarding the treatment of the complainants and the lack of transparency in police actions.
The bench remarked,
“It is disturbing that two individuals who entered the police station to lodge a complaint came out as accused in a serious criminal case. What happened inside the police station remains shrouded in mystery, which should never be repeated.”
The judgment highlighted the absence of CCTV footage, which could have clarified the events within the station. This omission was in clear violation of directives issued by the Supreme Court in cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
The bench underscored the systemic failure in ensuring police accountability, stating,
“There is a manifest administrative failure on the part of the State in not installing CCTV facilities in the police station… which could have easily revealed the truth.”
The High Court issued several directives aimed at addressing these systemic failures:
- CCTV Installation Deadline: By March 31, 2025, all police stations and outposts in Odisha must be outfitted with CCTV cameras linked to a Central Monitoring System (CMS).
- SOP for Armed Forces Interaction: A detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was introduced, focusing on the respectful treatment of armed forces personnel and clarifying arrest procedures.
- Monitoring Mechanisms: Senior police officer Dayal Gangwar was appointed to oversee the implementation of these reforms, including ensuring the operational status of the CCTV systems.
- Transparency in Investigations: The court emphasized that its remarks should not affect ongoing investigations, but it highlighted the importance of impartiality and fairness.
Senior Advocate Gautam Mishra served as Amicus Curiae, providing meticulous arguments, while Advocate General Pitambar Acharya and Additional Government Advocate Saswat Das offered critical insights into the State’s actions and future commitments.