Madras High Court
Sekar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 August, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WPCRL(MD)No.396 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WPCRL(MD)No.396 of 2025
Sekar ... Petitioner
versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.Selvaprabhu,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to
immediately retrieve, preserve, and provide the petitioner a copy of CCTV
footage from the 2nd respondent Police Station for the period from
15.06.2025 morning 10.00 am to 16.06.2025 morning 2.00 am in the light of
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl) No.3543 of 2020 in
Paramvir Singh Saini Vs Baljit Singh order dated 02.12.2020.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
WPCRL(MD)No.396 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Yogeswaran
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Nos.1 and 2 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
police to furnish a copy of CCTV footage from the 2nd respondent police
station for the period from 15.06.2025 10.00 am to 16.06.2025 2.00 am.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
having three sons and history sheets were opened against them by the
2nd respondent police and the same are pending. On 04.06.2025 the
3rd respondent along with 2nd respondent police scolded the petitioner by
saying his community name and therefore, on 05.06.2025 the petitioner has
lodged a complaint before 1st respondent police. The petitioner has also
lodged a complaint to the CM Cell and to the Inspector General of Police,
South Zone by registered post. Subsequently on 15.06.2025 the
3rd respondent along with 2nd respondent police entered into the petitioner’s
house and took his son Anandbabu and also asked the petitioner to hand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
over his other two sons and the 2nd respondent police registered a case
against Anandbabu in Crime No.359 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 132,
351 (3) of the BNS and Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act and he was
remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently he has obtained anticipatory
bail in Crl MP No. 1601 of 2025 on 02.06.2025 from the Principal District
and Session Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter on 16.06.2025 the petitioner gave
a representation to the 1st respondent / the Superintendent of Police, seeking
CCTV footage of the 2nd respondent Police Station for the period from
15.06.2025 10.00 am to 16.06.2025 2.00 am, however his request has not
been considered by the respondent police. Therefore, the petitioner has filed
this petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Balaji Singh & others reported in (2021) 1 SCC
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police submits the petitioner has not given any proper reason for
which he is seeking the CCTV footages of the 2nd respondent police station.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
4.This court considered the rival submissions made.
5.The petitioner has sought for CCTV footage of the 2nd respondent
police station. The purpose of installing CCTV cameras in police stations is
to bring in transparency and preserve evidence in case of violation of human
rights in the police station premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied on the decision in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Balaji Singh &
others reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court
has mandated that every police station should maintain CCTV cameras at
important points. However, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the very same judgment has provided a specific purpose for which the
footage of such cameras is to be acquired. The relevant portion of the same
is extracted hereunder:
“18. Whenever there is information of force being
used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or
custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to
complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may
not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission,
which is then to utilise its powers, more particularly under
Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, for redressal of such complaints, but also to Human
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each District of
every State/Union Territory under Section 30 of the
aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can then immediately
summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for
its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an
investigation agency in order to further process the
complaint made to it.”
6.The Honb'le Supreme Court has made it clear that whenever
allegations of torture or custodial violence are raised against the police
officials, then complaints can be made to the State Human Rights
Commission or the Human Rights Courts established as per Section 30 of
the Human Rights Act 1993.
7.In the present case, there are no allegations of torture or serious
force being used inside the 2nd respondent police station on the petitioner's
son. The only allegation levelled by the petitioner is that a false case has
been registered against the son of the petitioner, since the petitioner had
made a complaint against the 3rd respondent police to the higher officials
that the police have abused and threatened the petitioner and his family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
8.In the absence of any specific allegation of custodial violence or
torture, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. If still the
petitioner is having any grievance, the same can be redressed during the
trial. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.
29.08.2025
DSK
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
DSK
29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 11:38:50 am )
