Bombay HC summons contractors for non-functional CCTVs in police stations across Maharashtra

HC directed the state government to ask the two contractors who installed them to be present in court on Friday

Mumbai: After the Bombay High court (HC) received information that 711 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems out of 6,092 cameras in 547 police stations across the state were non-functional, it directed the state government to ask the two contractors who installed them to be present in court on Friday.

The public prosecutor for the state submitted that the CCTV system consisted of a camera and a main device and in the event of any problem in either of the devices, the system stopped functioning. (HT)

The HC was also informed that the contractors had already been paid and were briefed about the Supreme Court (SC) guidelines pertaining to CCTV systems.

The division bench of justice S J Kathawalla and justice Milind Jadhav while hearing the petition filed by Somnath Giri and another through advocate H M Inamdar was informed that the petitioners had approached the court after the Nashik police had issued them a notice under section 149 (unlawful assembly to commit offence) of the Indian Penal Code on January 8, 2022 which was arbitrary.

The court was informed that the notice was issued based on a complaint by a rival group and hence the petitioners were aggrieved at being singled out. After the state submitted that the police had issued a similar notice to the other party on the same day as well, the court had sought footage of the police station. However, when the police station said that the footage was not available the court had sought to know the extent to which the SC order for installing CCTV systems across all police stations in the state had been complied with.

The public prosecutor for the state submitted that the CCTV system consisted of a camera and a main device and in the event of any problem in either of the devices, the system stopped functioning.

The court then asked as to why the non-functional device was not being repaired and as the contractors had already been a part of the ₹60 crore allocated for the same, why were they (contractors) not being held liable for the same.

After the counsel for the petitioners suggested that both the contractors and the manufacturer should be questioned, the court directed the state to ask the contractors to be present in the court so that they could interact with them and understand the entire system.

Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the bench to the SC direction which made it mandatory for all First Information Reports (FIRs) to be uploaded on the official website. The court observed that as the petition was not a public interest litigation (PIL) and as it had been assured of compliance of SC orders it wanted the advocate general to go through its order and take appropriate steps in this regard.