SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1096                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1096              [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                            SHAFHI MOHAMMAD
                                           v.
                     THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017)
                                   APRIL 03, 2018
 B
           [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
              Investigation – Use of videography on the scene of crime –
       Videography of crime scene during investigation is of immense value
       in improving administration of criminal justice – Technology is a
       great tool in investigation – By videography, crucial evidence can
 C     be captured and presented in a credible manner – Notwithstanding
       the fact that as of now investigating agencies in India are not fully
       equipped and prepared for the use of videography, the time is ripe
       that steps are taken to introduce videography in investigation,
       particularly for crime scene as desirable and acceptable best
 D     practice as suggested by the Committee of the MHA to strengthen
       the Rule of Law – Therefore, the Centrally Driven Plan of Action
       prepared by the Committee and the timeline is approved – It is
       directed that with a view to implement the Plan of Action prepared
       by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up by the
       MHA forthwith – Suggestions of the Committee in its report may
 E     also be kept in mind – The COB will be responsible for further
       planning and implementation of use of videography – Central
       Government is directed to give full support to the COB and place
       necessary funds at its disposal – The COB may issue appropriate
       directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality
 F     in a phased manner and in first phase of implementation by 15 th
       July, 2018, crime scene videography must be introduced at least at
       some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB –
       The suggestion that funding for this project may be initially by the
       Centre to the extent possible and a central server may be set up,
       may also be considered by the COB – There is need for a further
 G     direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created
       whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera
       footages and periodically publish report of its observations – The
       COB to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest.
              Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539
 H            : [2009] 11 SCR 470 – followed.
                                         1096
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                            1097
                   PRADESH

       D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2015) 8               A
       SCC 744 : [2015] 7 SCR 814 – relied on.
       Ram Singh and Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp
       SCC 611 : [1985] Suppl. SCR 399; Tukaram S. Dighole
       v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329 : [2010]
       2 SCR 396; Tomaso Bruno and anr. v. State of Uttar                B
       Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178 : [2015] 1 SCR 721; Mohd.
       Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9
       SCC 1 : [2012] 8 SCR 295; State (NCT of Delhi) v.
       Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl.
       SCR 79 – referred to.
       R. v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; R v. Robson                 C
       (1972) 2 All ER 699 – referred to.
                         Case Law Reference
       [2009] 11 SCR 470                 followed        Para 9
       [1985] Suppl. SCR 399             referred to     Para 9
                                                                         D
       [2010] 2 SCR 396                  referred to     Para 9
       [2015] 1 SCR 721                  referred to     Para 9
       [2012] 8 SCR 295                  referred to     Para 9
       [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79            referred to     Para 9
       [2015] 7 SCR 814                  relied on       Para 13         E
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 2302 of 2017.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2014 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2009.
                                   WITH                                  F
       SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9431 of 2011 and 9631-9634 of 2012.
       ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Dr. Arun Mohan,
(AC), Jayant Bhushan, (AC), Y. P. Adhyaru, Sr. Advs., Rituj Chopra,
Ketann Paul, Tushar Bhushan, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Bharat Bhushan,
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Asha   G
Gopalan Nair, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Salvador S.
Rebello, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Ms. Sneha Prabhu Tendulkar, Amogh Prabhu,
B.V. Balram Das, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Shyam Sundar Rai,
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Manjakini Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Anuradha
                                                                         H
1098            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     Mutatkar, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the
       appearing parties.
             The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
                                     ORDER
              SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017
 B
              1. Use of videography of the scene of crime is the subject matter
       of consideration herein. We may note the proceedings in the case on
       earlier hearings. In order dated 25th April, 2017, it was observed:
              “Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Solicitor General, has
              accordingly put in appearance and made his submissions.
 C
              He has also submitted a note to the effect that such videograph
              will indeed help the investigation and such concept is being
              used in some other advanced countries. The National Institute
              of Justice which is an agency of U.S. Department of Justice
              in its report has noted the perceived benefits for using the
 D            “Body-Worn Cameras” and also the precautions needed in
              doing so. The British Transport Police has also found body
              worn cameras as deterrent against anti-social behaviour and
              tool to collect evidence. He also referred to judgment of this
              Court in Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC
              539 wherein reference to use of technology during search
 E
              and seizure under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
              Substances Act, 1985 has been made. Reference has also been
              made to Information Technology Act (Amendment) 2006,
              particularly, Section 79A. In (1976) 2 SCC 17, Ziyauddin
              Burhanuddin Bukhari Vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors.,
 F            this Court noted that new techniques and devices are the order
              of the day. Audio and video tape technology has emerged as
              a powerful medium through which a first hand information
              can be gathered and can be crucial evidence.
              Learned Additional Solicitor General has also drawn our
 G            attention to the Field Officers’ Handbook issued by the
              Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs,
              Government of India, inter-alia, suggesting that logistic
              support be provided to the search teams. It further suggests
              that all recovery and concealment methods should be
              videographed simultaneously. The said handbook 3 also
 H            suggests that permission should be taken under Section 52A
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                               1099
                   PRADESH

       of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985          A
       for pretrial disposal of the contraband. Further, reference
       has been made to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
       Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016 moved by a private
       member in the Lok Sabha. He submits that in his view such
       Bill will advance the interests of justice and he will advice the
                                                                            B
       Government of India to consider and oversee adoption for
       these measures in the Country by investigating agencies.
       Mr. A.I. Cheema, learned Amicus points out that Second
       Proviso to Section 54A of the Cr.P.C. provides for videography
       of identification process in circumstances specified in the said
       provision. He also stated that there should be videography of        C
       confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He states
       that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying
       declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem.
       Since, we find that at the ground level these measures have
       not been fully adopted, we direct the Home Secretary,                D
       Government of India to ascertain from different Investigating
       Agencies to how far such measures can be adopted and what
       further steps be taken to make use of above technology for
       effective investigation and crime prevention.”
       2. Thereafter, in the order dated 12th October, 2017 consideration   E
of the matter was as follows:
       “Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General,
       has filed a note stating that the matter was discussed by the
       Union Home Secretary with the Chief Secretaries of the States.
       A decision was taken to constitute a Committee of Experts
       (COE) to facilitate and prepare a report to formulate a road-        F
       map for use of videography in crime investigation and to
       propose a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The
       Committee has held its meetings. The response of the States is
       in support of use of videography. The Central Investigation
       Agencies have also supported the said concept. However,              G
       certain reservations have been expressed in the
       implementation such as funding, securing the data and storage
       of the same. It has also been submitted that the production
       and admissibility of evidence are also issues which may need
       to be addressed.
                                                                            H
1100      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     We had requested Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior
       counsel, to assist the court who has also submitted a note to
       the effect that videography will be a beneficial step for
       effective prosecution subject to the issue of admissibility being
       resolved to make the use of videography compatible and
       useful. He also submitted that the direction ought to be issued
 B
       for use of videography in investigation and such use be made
       mandatory.
       We have also requested Mr. Arun Mohan, learned senior
       counsel, present in the Court, to assist the Court on the subject
       as amicus. He submitted that equipments which may be useful
 C     for scientific investigation have been suggested in certain
       publications on the subject. A copy each of the said 3
       publications has been furnished to Mr. Nadkarni so that the
       same can be considered by the Committee of Experts. He
       submitted that still photography may be more useful as it
 D     enables much higher resolution for forensic analysis. Digital
       camera can be placed on a mount on a tripod which may
       enable rotation and tilting. Secured portals may be established
       to which Investigation Officer can e-mail photographs taken
       at the crime scene. To give authenticity and prevent
       manipulation, digital images can be retained on State’s server
 E     as permanent record. The State server can re-mail the digital
       files back to the police station for further use. Special cameras
       may be selected by the BPR&D. Till this is done, smart-phones
       can also be used. BPR&D may prepare a guidance manual
       for the Investigation Officers for crime scene photography
 F     and video recording of statements of witnesses. He stated that
       a further note on the subject may be submitted by him.”
       3. In order dated 30th January, 2018 it was observed:
       “(3) We have been taken through certain decisions which may
       be referred to. In Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh,
 G     1985 (Supp) SCC 611, a Three-Judge Bench considered the
       said issue. English Judgments in R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2
       All ER 464, and R. v. Robson, (1972) 2 ALL ER 699, and
       American Law as noted in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol.29)
       page 494, were cited with approval to the effect that it will be
 H     wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                              1101
                   PRADESH

      by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy             A
      of the recording can be proved. Such evidence should always
      be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all
      the circumstances of each case. Electronic evidence was held
      to be admissible subject to safeguards adopted by the Court
      about the authenticity of the same. In the case of tape-
                                                                           B
      recording it was observed that voice of the speaker must be
      duly identified, accuracy of the statement was required to be
      proved by the maker of the record, possibility of tampering 5
      was required to be ruled out. Reliability of the piece of
      evidence is certainly a matter to be determined in the facts
      and circumstances of a fact situation. However, threshold            C
      admissibility of an electronic evidence cannot be ruled out
      on any technicality if the same was relevant.
      (4) In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010)
      4 SCC 329, the same principle was reiterated. This Court
      observed that new techniques and devices are order of the            D
      day. Though such devices are susceptible to tampering, no
      exhaustive rule could be laid down by which the admission
      of such evidence may be judged. Standard of proof of its
      authenticity and accuracy has to be more stringent than other
      documentary evidence.
                                                                           E
      (5) In Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015)
      7 SCC 178, a Three-Judge Bench observed that advancement
      of information technology and scientific temper must pervade
      the method of investigation. Electronic evidence was relevant
      to establish facts. Scientific and electronic evidence can be a
      great help to an investigating agency. Reference was made to         F
      the decisions of this Court in Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v.
      State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 and State (NCT of
      Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.”
      4 On the issue of interpretation of Section 65B(4) of the Evidence
Act with regard to the admissibility of the electronic evidence it was     G
observed :
      “12. Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject
      on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by
      a party who is not in possession of device from which the
      document is produced. Such party cannot be required to               H
1102             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.
             The applicability of requirement of certificate being
             procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice
             so justifies.
             13. To consider the remaining aspects, including finalization
 B           of the road-map for use of the videography in the crime scene
             and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), we adjourn
             the matter to 13th February, 2018.”
              5. We have now taken up the issue for further consideration. An
       affidavit dated 21st March, 2018 has been filed by the Director, Ministry
 C     of Home Affairs (MHA) annexing thereto Report of the Committee
       constituted by the MHA about use of videography in police investigation
       dated 22nd November, 2017. The Committee considered various issues
       including the present infrastructure and usage, concerns/problems raised
       by various States for use of videography during investigations, admissibility
       of electronic evidence in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4)
 D     of the Evidence Act, operational difficulties, lack of training, funding,
       forensic facilities. The Committee observed that though crime scene
       videography was a “desirable and acceptable best practice”, the
       mandatory videography required major issues being addressed.
       Videography may be done on “Best Effort” basis. The timeline should
 E     be different for different States and the Central Investigating Agencies.
       The Committee suggested two alternative timelines. The second option
       i.e. Option-B suggested by the Committee is as follows:
             “7.3 Option-B: Centrally Driven Plan of Action:
             The second approach suggested is for implementation of the
 F           directions in a phased manner with milestone based review
             mechanism.
             a. Phase-I: Three Months: Concept, Circulation and
             Preparation.
                 * The concept for videography of the recommended
 G
                   categories of tasks, preparations for pilot project launch
                   in i)Cities of 50 lakhs population or more; and, ii)at
                   least one district of every remaining State/Union
                   Territory; within three months of the orders of the
                   Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the selected district(s), at
 H
SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                           1103
              PRADESH

     least five police stations may be identified for              A
     implementation of the scheme on best effort basis as a
     pilot project
  * Capacity Building by organizing training programme
    for personnel in the police station on the Videography
    Techniques for them to be qualified as the Trained             B
    Police Videographer by the end of three months. Each
    selected Police Station should identify personnel for
    Trained Police Videographer qualification, at the rate
    of two (2) Trained Police Videographer for every 25
    heinous/grave crime cases reported in that police station
    in a year.                                                     C

  * Selected Districts be enabled/provided finances to
    procure the equipment required for use by the Trained
    Police Videographer.
  * A representative of the FSL trained in handling digital        D
    evidences should be identified by each of the states to
    mentor and hand hold the Pilot Project implementation
    district Trained Police Videographers. Where FSL has
    no resources to offer, the SP/DCP of the concerned
    district should be authorized to hire a private technical
    person proficient in digital imaging and back-up               E
    technologies to handhold/mentor the Trained Police
    Videographers.
  * Preparation of Trainer Police Videographer Training
    Modules and Training of Trainers courses by BPR&D/
    CDTS/State Police Academies.                                   F
b. Phase-II: Six Months: Pilot Project Implementation
  * After the three months of Concept, Circulation and
    Preparation stage, the pilot project should be launched
    in the selected police stations of the shortlisted Districts
                                                                   G
    of the States.
  * The concerned District Superintendent of Police / Deputy
    Commissioner of Police, shall designate an officer of
    the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant
    Commissioner of Police, to supervise the implementation
                                                                   H
1104     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           of the Pilot Project and to chronicle the Pilot
             implementation. Any implementation issues shall
             immediately be flagged and brought to the notice of the
             SP / DCP concerned. The officer designated will be
             responsible for the uninterrupted implementation of the
             Pilot.
 B
         * Launch of Trained Police Videographer Training
           Programmes/ Training of Trainer Course by BPR&D/
           CDTS/ State Police Academies.
       c. Phase-III: Three Months: Pilot Implementation Review
 C       * The Phase –II Pilot implementation should be reviewed
           by an independent consultant and, suggestions for
           seamless implementation on a wider scale should be
           prepared.
         * Thereport of the independent consultant to be considered
 D         by MHA and select group of officers regarding Pilot
           implementation and review report preparation.
         * Thereview and findings by MHA to be placed before the
           Hon’ble Supreme Court for incorporating necessary
           changes as required regarding the Videography during
 E         Investigation and obtain necessary instructions.
         * During this phase, each state should prepare detailed
           plans for the launch of the next phase of Videography
           in Investigations project extending it to i) all cities with
           a population of 10 lakhs and more; b) in all districts
 F         with a population of 20 lakhs and more, during Phase-
           IV.
         *    A representative of the FSL trained in handling digital
             evidences should be identified for each of the new unit
             to mentor and hand hold the district Trained Police
 G           Videographers, where roll out is proposed in Phase-IV.
             Where FSL has no resources to offer, the SP/DCP of the
             concerned district should be authorized to hire a private
             technical person proficient in digital imaging and back-
             up technologies to handhold/mentor the Trained Police
             Videographers.
 H
SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                          1105
              PRADESH

  * Each state to submit plans for strengthening the Forensic     A
    Sciences Laboratories for handling increased Cyber
    Forensics/Digital Media analysis units. MHA to
    consider the requirements for this purpose under the
    MPF scheme.
  * During Phase-III, the Pilot implementation districts/cities   B
    will continue with the Videography in Investigations
    project and extend them to all their Police Stations.
d. Phase-IV: One Year: Coverage extension from Pilot
Implementation
  * Implementation of the Videography in Investigations           C
    project to Cities of 10+ lakhs population/Districts of
    20+ lakhs population identified during Phase-III.
  * During this phase, each state should prepare detailed
    plans for the launch of the Videography in
    Investigations project in all remaining districts/cities,     D
    which were not covered during Pilot Phase (Phase-II)
    and Phase-III.
  * A representative of the FSL trained in handling digital
    evidences should be identified for each of the remaining
    units to mentor and hand hold the district Trained Police     E
    Videographers, where roll out is proposed in Phase-V.
    Where FSL has no resources to offer, the SP/DCP of the
    concerned district should be authorized to hire a private
    technical person proficient in digital imaging and back-
    up technologies to handhold/mentor the Trained Police         F
    Videographers.
  * MHA to work on extending the financial support for
    implementation of the project for remaining cities and
    districts during Phase-V.
  e. Phase-V: One Year: Coverage extension to remaining           G
     Cities and Districts
  * Implementation of the Videography in Investigations
    project in all remaining districts and cities.
  * Review of Phase-IV implementation learning based on
    independent consultant’s report by MHA and submission         H
1106             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                   of status report to the Supreme Court for modifications/
                     suggestions for improvement of the Videography in
                     Investigations project.”
             6. Apart from above, the Committee suggested that a group of
       experts may be set up at the level of Government of India comprising:
 B            (i) One head of Central Investigation agencies (CBI, NIA, NCB)
                  as Chairperson;
              (ii) One head of State Police;
              (iii) One head of CFSL or Senior Forensic Scientist with expertise
 C                in the area;
              (iv) A Senior Legal Professional (LA of CBI or NIA or comparable
                  from Ministry of Law); and
              (v) A senior representative from MHA as members.
               7. The group should have the freedom to co-opt members and
 D
       private experts. The group could periodically issue guidelines/advisories.
       It is further suggested that each State Police and the Central Investigating
       Agency may create a Steering Committee under HOPF/Head of CPO
       within the organization to spearhead this drive. Each State Police/Central
       Investigating Agency may also designate a senior officer in the rank of
 E     IG/ADG as Nodal Officer for spearheading the massive expansion of
       photography and videography in investigation. Such an officer should
       be given authority/responsibility to review the progress at periodic intervals
       and take/propose necessary measures.
              8. After considering the report of the Committee, the MHA
 F     prepared an action plan on the use of videography in the police
       investigation stipulating capacity building in terms of training, equipment,
       forensic facilities, a scheme for requisite funds, preparation of Standard
       Operating Procedure (SOP). For this purpose, the timeline suggested is
       as follows:
 G            “All Central Agencies will be asked to prepare and submit
              Annual Action Plan on “photography and videography in
              Investigation for 2018 within three months.
              The Ministry will scrutinize the plans and prepare a
              consolidated requirement and send a formal proposal/scheme
 H
     SHAFHI MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL                                       1107
                   PRADESH

       to the Ministry of Finance for concurrence and obtaining                     A
       budget within two months from the finalization/approval of
       the consolidated action plan, insofar as Central Agencies are
       concerned.
       Efforts will be made to obtain the budget from Ministry of
       Finance within the financial year 2018-19.                                   B
       Similar action will have to be taken by States/UTs with respect
       to their forces.”
       9. We are in agreement with the Report of the Committee of
Experts that videography of crime scene during investigation is of
immense value in improving administration of criminal justice. A                    C
Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh versus State of
Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 noted that technology is an important part
in the system of police administration1. It has also been noted in the
decisions quoted in the earlier part of this order that new techniques and
devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be                D
adopted. Such techniques and devices are the order of the day.
Technology is a great tool in investigation2. By the videography, crucial
evidence can be captured and presented in a credible manner.
       10. Thus, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the
fact that as of now investigating agencies in India are not fully equipped          E
and prepared for the use of videography, the time is ripe that steps are
taken to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime
scene as desirable and acceptable best practice as suggested by the
Committee of the MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law. We approve the
Centrally Driven Plan of Action prepared by the Committee and the
timeline as mentioned above. Let the consequential steps for                        F
implementation thereof be taken at the earliest.
      11. We direct that with a view to implement the Plan of Action
prepared by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up
by the MHA forthwith. The COB may issue directions from time to
1
                                                                                    G
  Para 34 – (2009) 8 SCC 539
2
  Ram Singh and Ors. vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985(Supp) SCC 611, R. vs. Maqsud
Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464, R vs. Robson (1972) 2 All ER 699, Tukaram S. Dighole vs.
Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329, Tomaso Bruno and anr. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178, Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 9 SCC 1 and State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.
                                                                                    H
1108              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     time. Suggestions of the Committee in its report may also be kept in
       mind. The COB will be responsible for further planning and implementation
       of use of videography. We direct the Central Government to give full
       support to the COB and place necessary funds at its disposal. We also
       direct that the COB may issue appropriate directions so as to ensure
       that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner and in
 B
       first phase of implementation by 15th July, 2018 crime scene videography
       must be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority
       determined by the COB.
              12. We place on record the suggestion of the learned amicus that
       funding for this project may be initially by the Centre to the extent possible
 C     and a central server may be set up. These suggestions may be considered
       by the COB. We also note that law and order is a State subject.
               13. We may also refer to a connected issue already dealt with by
       this Court in D.K. Basu versus State of West Bengal and ors. (2015)
       8 SCC 744. This Court directed that with a view to check human rights
 D     abuse CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations as well as in
       prisons. There is need for a further direction that in every State an
       oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee
       can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of
       its observations. Let the COB issue appropriate instructions in this regard
 E     at the earliest. The COB may also compile information as to compliance
       of such instructions in the next three months and give a report to this
       Court.
             14. Compliance of above directions may be ensured by the
       Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government as well
 F     as Home Secretaries of all the State Governments.
            15. An affidavit of progress achieved may be filed by the Oversight
       Body on or before 31st July, 2018.
              Put up the matter for further consideration on 1st August, 2018.

 G
       Devika Gujral                                                  Directions issued.




 H