Kerala High Court Seeks State's Stand On Notification Of Human Rights Courts, Information On CCTV Cameras In Police Stations
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 16) asked the state government to file a statement declaring that Human Rights Courts, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, had been duly notified. It also told the State to place on record information relating to the functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 16) asked the state government to file a statement declaring that Human Rights Courts, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, had been duly notified.
It also told the State to place on record information relating to the functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a PIL filed by four persons, including Youth Congress leader Sujith V.S., who was allegedly subjected to custodial torture by the police.
The Court noted that there were three prayers in the public interest litigation. The first prayer sought directions for issuing guidelines for the proper functioning of the Human Rights Courts. The second prayer was for a mandamus to the Law Secretary for implementing the rules and procedures for the effective administration of the Human Rights courts. The third prayer pertained to the Human Rights Commission and sought for a direction to issue proper guidelines to the Secretary for the proper functioning of the Commission.
Upon the Court's inquiry as to why it was alleged that the Human Rights Commission was not properly functioning, the counsel for the petitioners stated that the 4th petitioner's complaint regarding custodial torture was not considered by the Commission. However, upon Court's inquiry, it was stated by the petitioner that no complaint was actually preferred.
Thereupon, the Court observed, "Without Petitioner No.4 approaching the Human Rights Commission, it cannot be presumed that the State Human Rights Commission will not consider the complaint. If the Petitioner approaches the State Human Rights Commission, we have no doubt that the Commission will look into the issue with all seriousness if the case is so made out."
Regarding the issue of CCTV cameras in police station, the Court recorded the State Attorney's submission that the same is being consideration by the Supreme Court, and observed, "...the relevant information regarding the CCTV cameras and their functioning at the Police Station, will also be placed on record in the present petition."
The case will be heard again on October 7.
The petition is moved by Alex K. John, Abhishek T.M., Fida Husna P.P., Satheesh T.P., Cyriac Elias Steen, Sreekuttan M., Suresh P.N., Arun K.V., Jilcy Jacob, Ninan Thomas, Gego George, Prathitha Mariyam Thomas & Sijin Stanley. State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar appeared for the respondents.
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 113 of 2025
Case Title: G. Samuel and Ors. v. Chief Secretary and Ors.