Today, in the modern world most of the public places under CCTV surveillance, which is a mandatory thing. The CCTV footages achieve a major role of the eye witness. The previous day an paramount ruling comes out from the Chamber of the Madras High Court Judge, Justice S M Subramanyam of Madras High Court state that chamber of justice is a public place so it is mandatory that to install surveillance camera in his chamber, which is ruled to the registrar on the situation or doesn’t take any necessary steps to install the CCTV there.
“Two weeks lapsed, three weeks lapsed and now, four weeks lapsed. Nothing happened, is the painful situation”, said by justice. In this particular ruling, the judge made reference from a case and it is as follows “We direct that at least in two districts in every State/Union Territory (with the exception of small States/Union Territories where it may be considered to be difficult to do so by the High Courts concerned) CCTV cameras (without audio recording) may be installed inside the courts and at such important locations of the Court complexes as may be considered appropriate. Monitor thereof may be in the Chamber of the District and Sessions Judge concerned. Location of the district courts and any other issues concerning the subject may be decided by the respective High Courts. We make it clear that the footage of the CCTV camera will not be available under RTI and will not be supplied to anyone without the permission of the High Court concerned. Installation may be completed within three months from today. The report of such experiment is submitted within one month of such installation by the Registrars General of the respective High Courts to the Secretary-General of this Court who may have it tabulated and placed before the Court.” lawyers in India.
They also referred the case Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others Vs. The state of Maharashtra and another.
It is as follows, “
It is well settled that in general, all cases brought before the courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open court. A public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the courtroom. As Bentham has observed:
‘In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has a place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity.’ (Scott v. Scott [Scott v. Scott, 1913 AC 417(HL)], AC p. 477).”.
Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, firstname.lastname@example.org