The ex-CJ opposes HC to the installation of “surveillance cameras” at the residence of the chief justice: The Tribune India


Saurabh Malik

Tribune press service

Chandigarh, July 20

In practically a chief justice versus chief justice case, a former chief justice and high court judge in Punjab and Haryana, Judge NK Sodhi, on Tuesday opposed the HC to the installation of “cameras. supervision ”at the residence of the present 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.

The plea of ​​Judge 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 at the height of terrorism, that kind of security did not exist for the Chief Justice.
  • For the other judges, such security was not available
  • CCTV cameras cannot prevent an untoward incident

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, adviser to the administrator of the UT, the police of Chandigarh, the High Court and the director general of the CRPF was brought before the division of Judge Jaswant Singh and the Judge Sant Parkash this morning. 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 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 up to the road berm of houses number 34 and 36. There was no intrusion or breach of privacy. house number 36.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.