Press Reporter News Service
Chandigarh, July 20
In nearly a Chief Justice-versus-Chief Justice case, a former Chief Justice and a Decide of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom, Justice N.Okay. Sodhi, on Tuesday moved the HC in opposition to the set up of “surveillance cameras” on the residence of the current Chief Justice.
Residing reverse the official residence of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha in Sector 4, Karnataka Excessive Courtroom’s former Chief Justice Sodhi claimed that the high-resolution, infra-red, cameras put in on the “tall poles” violated his proper to privateness.
Justice Sodhi’s plea
- A discover, required to be displayed for basic public’s info that the realm is below CCTV surveillance, was no put up
- A CCTV digicam can’t be positioned at a spot the place it collects info which invades a person’s the privateness
- The Chief Justice is well-protected at his residence, whereas shifting in his automobile and on the Excessive Courtroom
- Even in the course of the peak of terrorism, this sort of safety was not there for the Chief Justice.
- For different Judges, such safety was not accessible
- CCTV cameras can’t stop an untoward incident
His counsel Rajiv Atma Ram, Arjun Partap Atma Ram and Brijesh Khosla contended: “The cameras can document individuals and automobiles and different autos coming to, leaving, getting into, and going out of the petitioner’s residence; they will look into the entrance and the facet portion of the petitioner’s built-up home. Thus, there’s an invasion of privateness of all of the residents of (his) home quantity 36, Sector 4, Chandigarh….”
The petition in opposition to the Union of India, UT Chandigarh, Adviser to the UT Administrator, the Chandigarh Police, the Excessive Courtroom and CRPF Director-Basic was positioned earlier than Division Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Parkash this morning. The matter has been disposed of however detailed order was not but accessible.
UT extra standing counsel Namit Kumar, in the course of the course of listening to, positioned earlier than the Bench an “inquiry report” in a sealed cowl. A communication by HC Registrar-Basic Sanjiv Berry to Justice Sodhi was additionally positioned earlier than the Bench. It mentioned spot inspection was carried out after Justice Sodhi’s letter was despatched to UT DGP for info and mandatory motion.
The DGP’s workplace subsequently mentioned the cameras have been put in to “safe the protected individuals from all doable apprehensions of threats in accordance with the provisions of the Yellow E book”. These cameras didn’t cowl the homes on the other facet of the road and solely lined space as much as the road-berm of home quantity 34 and 36. There was no trespass or breach into privateness of home quantity 36.