The Delhi High Court said CCTV installed at police stations must have audio and video equipment and asked the local police station to explain why the audio system was not available.
Judge Anu Malhotra, confronted with a request for alleged obstacles caused by the petitioner in fulfilling the imam’s official and religious duties in the mosque, noted that the Supreme Court had ordered CCTVs to be installed at police stations.
At his request, the petitioner claimed that the “self-proclaimed carer” who operated the machine “illegally” threatened him with dire consequences and subjected him to inhuman and shameful treatment in the presence of the SHO at the police station. He added that the whole incident was intercepted by CCTV cameras located in the SHO room, but no legal action was taken and efforts were made to preserve the CCTV footage, audio, and video. It is important to note that due to the decision of the Venerable Supreme Court in the case of “Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others,”.. raids, corridors, vestibules, receptions, verandas/outbuildings,.. and that and must necessarily consist of audio or video material,” the court said in its May 27 order.
Under the circumstances, opponents 1 and 2 should explain why the phonograms have not yet been installed and that it is in line with the installation of the phonograms per Hon’s instructions. “The court confirmed” that the hearing had been rescheduled for another date.
The petitioner’s lawyer, M Sufiyan Siddiqui, who appeared before the court, told the court that the police had deliberately and intentionally disregarded an earlier court order requiring her to provide the petitioner with adequate police protection under his official and religious duties as an imam from a mosque.
But in the present case, according to the lawyer, it is an attempt to undermine the dignity of the court, which amounts to interference with the administration of justice and, to a large extent, limits and reduces the supremacy of the judiciary.
The state stated that the petitioner’s version was exaggerated and that there was only one warm exchange between the petitioner and the other party, and instead the SHO summoned them both to the police station to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. opportunities. and Eid-Ul-Fitr.
