Pradyuman Bisht vs. Union Of India Department Of Justice Through Secretary

COURT NO.11

SECTION $X$

TTEM $NO.48$

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s).99 of 2015

PRADYUMAN BISHT

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date: 06/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT <pre>For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person</pre> For Respondent(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG $(U.O.I.)$ Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ananya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akshay Annitanshu, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. (St.of Uttarakhand) Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mr. Shaharyar Ali, Adv. Mr. Mohan Kumar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER

Heard.

Though this petition seeks a mandamus for an audio-video recording of the proceedings of the trial court to ensure fair trial, we limit the issue, raised in the petition, to ional/reflict/selfering whether CCTV cameras (without audio recording) can be court in stalled in courts or at some other locations in the court premises with the monitor being in the Chamber of District and Sessions Judge. The footage of CCTV camera may be retained for a particular period and may not be open to public. This may serve the security needs as well as be helpful in administration of justice.

It is a matter of public knowledge that such an experiment has been done in various courts, including the Gurugaon Courts, in the past.

We request Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel, present in court, as amicus, to assist the court on this aspect after visiting Gurugaon Courts within four weeks from today. The District Judge, Gurugaon Courts, will extend all cooperation to learned senior counsel.

We prima facie feel that after receipt of report from learned senior counsel, we may consider directing installation of CCTV cameras (without audio recording) in one district in every State, under the directions of the concerned High Courts, and in the light of the report, which may be finally received, we may examine the matter further.

List again for further hearing on Tuesday, the 21st March, 2017.

It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to ventilate his individual grievance before the appropriate authority/forum as the matter is limited to the issue mentioned above.

(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER