The ex-chief of justice moves HC against the “surveillance cameras” at CJ: The Tribune India

0

Tribune press service

Chandigarh, July 20

In virtually a chief justice versus chief justice case, a former chief justice and high court judge in Punjab and Haryana, Judge NK Sodhi, today moved the HC against the installation of ” surveillance cameras ”at the residence of the current Chief Justice. .

Living in front of the official residence of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha in Sector 4, the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Sodhi, claimed that the high-resolution infrared cameras installed on the “tall poles” violated his right to privacy.

His lawyers Rajiv Atma Ram, Arjun Partap Atma Ram and Brijesh Khosla asserted: “The cameras can record people, cars and other vehicles entering, leaving, entering and leaving the applicant’s residence; they can look into the front and side of the applicant’s built house. Thus, there is an invasion of the privacy of all residents of (his) house number 36, sector 4, Chandigarh…. “

The petition against the Union of India, UT, Chandigarh, UT Administrator’s Advisor, Chandigarh Police, High Court and Director General of CRPF was filed this morning in front of the division. of Judge Jaswant Singh and Judge Sant Parkash. The case was settled, but the detailed order was not yet available.

UT’s additional permanent lawyer, Namit Kumar, during the hearing, filed a sealed “investigative report” with the Chamber. A communication from the Registrar General of HC Sanjiv Berry to Judge Sodhi was also filed with the judiciary. He said an on-site inspection was carried out after Judge Sodhi’s letter was sent to UT’s DGP for information and necessary action. The DGP office later said that the cameras had been installed to “protect protected persons from all possible apprehensions of threats in accordance with the provisions of the Yellow Book”. These cameras did not cover the houses across the street and only covered the area. to the road berm of houses number 34 and 36. There was no intrusion or invasion of privacy at house number 36.


Plea of ​​judge NK Sodhi

  • A notice, to be posted for the general public’s information that the area is under CCTV surveillance, has not been put in place
  • A CCTV camera cannot be located where it collects information that violates an individual’s privacy
  • The Chief Justice is well protected at his residence, while traveling in his vehicle and at the High Court
  • Even during the height of terrorism, that kind of security was not there for the Chief Justice
  • For other judges, such security is not available; CCTV cameras cannot prevent an untoward incident


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.