Former Chief Justice moves HC against ‘surveillance cameras’ at CJ’s house

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 20

In fact, in the case of Chief Justice v. Chief Justice, Justice NK Sodhi, a former Chief Justice and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, today moved the High Court against the installation of “surveillance cameras” at the residence of the current Chief Justice. .

While standing in front of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha’s official residence in Sector 4, Sodhi, a former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, claimed that high-resolution, infra-red cameras installed on “tall pillars” violated his right to privacy. Huh.

His lawyers Rajiv Atma Ram, Arjun Pratap Atma Ram and Brijesh Khosla argued: “The cameras can record persons and cars and other vehicles that enter, leave, enter and exit the residence of the petitioner; they are manufactured by the petitioner. Can see the front and side of the house. Thus, there is a breach of privacy of all the residents of (his) house no. 36, Sector 4, Chandigarh.

The petition against the Union of India, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, Chandigarh Police, the High Court and the Director General of CRPF was placed before a division bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Prakash this morning. The matter has been disposed of but the detailed order was not yet available.

During the hearing, UT Additional Standing Counsel Namit Kumar placed an “Investigation Report” in a sealed cover before the Bench. A communication by HC Registrar-General Sanjeev Beri to Justice Sodhi was also placed before the Bench. It said the spot was inspected after Justice Sodhi’s letter was sent to the UT DGP for information and necessary action. The DGP’s office later said that the cameras were installed “to secure the protected persons from all possible apprehensions of danger in accordance with the provisions of the Yellow Book”. These cameras did not cover houses and only covered area on the opposite side of the road. Till road berm of house no. 34 and 36. There was no trespass or breach in the confidentiality of House No. 36.

Justice NK Sodhi’s petition

  • Necessary notice to demonstrate for the information of general public that the area is under CCTV surveillance was not put up
  • A CCTV camera cannot be mounted in a place where it collects information that infringes on the privacy of a person
  • Chief Justice is well protected at his residence, in his vehicle and while walking in the High Court
  • There was no such protection for the Chief Justice even at the height of terrorism.
  • Such protection is not available to other judges; CCTV cameras cannot prevent any untoward incident

Leave a Reply