Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
National
Staff Reporter

‘Ensure police station CCTV footages are stored for 12-18 months’

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Secretary to the Home Department and the Director-General of Police to ensure that footages recorded by CCTV cameras at police stations were protected for a minimum of 12 months to 18 months. The CCTV cameras should function properly, it said.

All measures should be initiated to install footage-storing facilities within three months, Justice S.M. Subramaniam said and directed the DGP to ensure proper storage of footages. In the event of failure on the part of officials, action should be taken against them for negligence, lapses and dereliction of duty.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh and Others, Justice Subramaniam said the courts had repeatedly directed that the CCTV camera footages at police stations be stored for at least 18 months. Yet, the police department was not equipped with CCTV cameras capable of storing footages for one year.

CCTV cameras with the latest technology were available. Therefore, the police stations should be equipped with CCTV cameras for storage of footages for a minimum of one year. The very purpose of CCTV cameras would be defeated if the footages got erased automatically in 15 to 30 days, the judge said.

Government departments, including the police, must ensure that members of the public approaching the competent authorities were treated properly and they had the feeling that they would be properly heard and their grievances redressed in the manner known to law, the judge said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by R.R. Saravana Balagurusamy of Dindigul district. He alleged that he was illegally detained by Vadamadurai police. He sought a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, to initiate action against the police officers concerned.

The judge observed the court was of the opinion that the petitioner had not substantiated the allegations and had made sweeping statements. The petitioner had not lodged complaints immediately with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption or the higher authorities concerned. Hence, the petition was disposed of.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.