Talking Shop: A sham called CCTVs

"When I do something great,

no one seems to remember.

When I do something wrong,

no one ever seems to forget."

— Anonymous

Across India, we claim to have over one crore functional CCTV cameras, both public and personal, with National Capital Delhi leading the charge, perhaps because the crime rate in the Capital city is unprecedented and scary. Back to CCTVs, these always-viewing sprites provide us with a sense of security, peace and maybe even calmness—probably because people with CCTVs believe that someone is watching over them and that can only help. But do these little cameras really help? Let's look at some numbers to figure out this new dhisshum (conundrum).

Why dhisshum? Well, because there is a new twist in this tale and people are fast losing faith, especially as the world turns topsy-turvy and we lick our proverbial tails. Yes, I did say 'numbers' and shall get to them, but we have to understand where these figures stem from. Things CCTV gathered steam and became discernible on April 3, 2018. On that day, after arguing a case of false implication and torture of a bus conductor by the police in Delhi-NCR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered the installation of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) equipment in police stations countrywide.

This is not the first time I am writing about this landmark order that came after the Central Bureau of Investigation gave the poor bus conductor a clean chit and recommended the immediate release of many others who had been similarly and summarily summoned and detained, without a shred of evidence against them. For the record, this was the SC's fourth such order, and it had thrice before expressed its indignation over the issue of continuing custodial irregularities, force-fed interrogation and non-compliance with its own previous directives. Referring to these, the SC again ordered the installation of CCTVs in the offices of every probe agency in the country.

On to September, 2022

Ignoring the SC's directives then (and till today), the authorities remain reluctant and belligerent. In each new affidavit, they make tall claims and pass taller mentions of their victories, even as the SC has observed repeatedly: "The Government has been dragging its feet. We will not accept any excuses or entertain appeals by authorities seeking another adjournment." The tryst continues.

In the interim, who pays? Well, the average Indian does, especially if they are unfortunate enough to be the focus of any investigation. The India Justice Report, 'Police: Improvements, Shortfalls and National Trends', says while the police force grew by 32 per cent between 2010 and 2020, the share of women in this heap is a "meagre 10.5 per cent". The report further claims 5,396 of the total 17,233 police stations in the country do not have a single CCTV camera on the premises, with only Odisha, Puducherry and Telangana having equipped all their police stations with at least one camera. Only one of the 894 police stations in Rajasthan has installed CCTV cameras on its premises, while Manipur, Ladakh and Lakshadweep have none (circa 2020).

I did say I would share numbers, so let them talk for a bit. China is the most policed nation in the world, with 540 million CCTV cameras for its 1.46 billion people (372.8 cameras per 1,000 people). In India, Indore has 200,600 cameras for 3,208,722 people (62.52 cameras per 1,000 people); Hyderabad has 440,299 cameras for 10,534,418 people (41.8 cameras per 1,000 people); Delhi boasts 436,600 cameras for 16,349,831 people (26.7 cameras per 1,000 people); and Chennai has 282,126 cameras for 11,503,293 people (24.53 cameras per 1,000 people). In a nutshell, Delhi leads in sheer CCTV numbers, but Indore is the most monitored in terms of cameras per person.

What's the moot point?

CCTVs serve many purposes like crime prevention, traffic monitoring and observing industrial operations in environments not apposite for humans. The digital age has boosted CCTV prevalence, especially as cameras get better and cheaper and live video streams can be remotely accessed and/or stored on the Internet. A predominant argument in favour of CCTVs is better law enforcement and crime prevention. But if you compare the number of public CCTV cameras with crime indices worldwide, a higher number of cameras does not correlate with a lower crime index. The clear conclusion—more cameras don't really reduce crime rates.

But they help. Let's look at instances in India where their absence came at a cost, the cost being human lives. In 2018, the SC heard a case of custodial torture in Punjab and discovered that there were no security cameras in the offices to ascertain what really transpired. Inflamed, the SC observed: "Nothing (substantial) has been done for over two-and-a-half years after the Supreme Court passed orders."

In another instance, the CBI admitted that a man and his son died after their arrest for violating the COVID-19 lockdown. They were apparently tortured by the police in Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu, as the officials "wanted to teach them a lesson". Jeyaraj (59 years) and his son Benniks (31 years) were beaten so badly they died. Then there's the case of labor rights activist Nodeep Kaur, granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court early last year. According to the medical report submitted to the court on the day of her release, Nodeep "seems to have been beaten up in custody by the Haryana Police following her arrest". Doctors who examined her 13 days after her arrest found bruises on various body parts.

Points to ponder

Some quick research threw up these facts—Article 20(3) of our Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Neither is the cardinal right to life and personal liberty, "except according to procedure established by law", under Article 21. These two inalienable guaranteed constitutional rights, when read with Section 438(1)(iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), also factor in any accusations made with the object of injuring or humiliating a person by having him arrested.

In her book on custodial interrogation, titled 'The Truth Machines: Policing, Violence, and Scientific Interrogations in India', Jinee Lokaneeta (who teaches political science at New Jersey's Drew University) wrote: "As per the Indian legal system, once you arrest someone, he/she has to be produced before a court within 24 hours. Thus, after the arrest, the police are expected to complete the investigation and interrogation within 24 hours." But in practicality, they get only 12-14 hours, which makes it difficult for them to go by the rule book. So, we have custodial interrogation and the use of less-than-humane and ideal means to obtain information.

We all welcome the SC's directive to install CCTVs, for it is far-reaching and will go a long way in reducing custodial violence and abuses, ensuring greater accountability. Some argue it is a Utopian step that thrives for its own fulfilment and that we need more. But any beginning is welcome because custodial torture is a grim Indian reality, as is custody as a means of torture. The quality of any democracy is tested as vigorously on the streets as it is inside Parliament, or in police stations and inside prisons.

Lastly, lest people find discomfiture in my usage of the word 'sham', let me clarify. I have used this term only because CCTVs mostly do not exist where they are most needed, despite the apex court's repeated directives and strong displeasure. And where CCTVs do watch quietly, the hidden agendas of those wielding the baton capture more than they do.

PS: On a lighter note, here's a quote by American talk show host and political commentator Dennis Miller: "Police in Washington DC are now using cameras to catch drivers who go through red lights. Many Congressmen this week opposed the use of the red-light cameras, incorrectly assuming they were being used for surveillance at local brothels." Indeed, CCTVs can be all-pervading. Ahem.

The writer is a veteran journalist and communications specialist. He can be reached on narayanrajeev2006@gmail.com. Views expressed are personal