MSHRC asks addl chief secy (Home) to pay Rs 25,000 to complainant

The complainant, Shiv Narayan Sharma, had approached the MSHRC alleging he was manhandled at the Bhandup police station. The alleged incident took place before 2021. He sought copies of CCTV footage from the police station to prove his charge. He then approached the commission on grounds that the police was not providing him copies of the CCTV footage.

In its order on January 25, MSHRC member M A Sayeed observed, “Very interesting and peculiar justification is sought to be projected by the police officers… DCP says that particular CCTV footage could not be furnished as the directions issued by the SC as well as Bombay HC came to be implemented in May 2021 by outsourcing …before 2021, CCTV cameras were installed through agencies privately which did not have the facility of retaining or preserving the footage.”

“In fact, the crux of the present complaint revolves around the vital issue of not furnishing the CCTV footages of the fateful day to the complainant as he came with a specific accusation of being manhandled and humiliated in the police station.”

“Admittedly, in the present matter from the explanations put forth on record, it is crystal clear that there was total lethargy and apathy on the part of the police to implement the directions issued by Supreme Court which in fact becomes law and binding on all the stakeholders by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India,” the order read.

“In fact to be more blunt and harsh, the defaulting police machinery is liable for contempt of court’s orders as a very casual statement is put forth on record that services of private agencies were availed for installation of CCTV but with no provision for preservation of footage for particular period whatsoever. In fact the Supreme Court in subsequent decision ..has mandated that the storage of the footage is necessary for a period of one year,” the order stated.

“All these factors taken together establish a serious lapse on the part of the concerned officers which in fact amounts to the violation of the human rights of the complainant. The complainant’s grievance has to be upheld and it has to be concluded that he was humiliated and manhandled at the police station by the concerned officers named above,” the order read.

The commission then recommended the ACS (Home) to pay Rs 25,000 to the complainant for “blatant violation of his human rights”. It further recommended that necessary disciplinary action against the defaulting officers be initiated after examining the entire record and the legal provisions.