Times of
India: Bhopal: Sunday, 01 March 2020.
The
state police have submitted before State Information Commission (SIC) that
there is no policy or guideline to put any individual, IAS or IPS officer who
has got protection or security cover under camera surveillance.
AIG-special
branch Siddharth Bahuguna gave this information in response to a complaint
filed by Vyapam whistle-blower Ashish Chaturvedi. SIC had ordered police to
conduct an inquiry and submit a detailed report on Chaturvedi’s allegation that
he was put under relentless camera surveillance.
Chaturvedi
had filed an appeal before the commission, alleging that the state police was
not sharing any documents related to the issue. After hearing his plea, the
commission had issued a four-point order.
Chaturvedi
alleged mental trauma
After
hearing his plea, the commission had issued a four-point order, asking police
to file a reply on the names, addresses and contact numbers of the officers who
had put him under surveillance, papers pertaining to the orders issued in this
regard, officers who were watching the footage and places where the recordings
were stored. They have been asked to submit compliance of the order at the
earliest.
In
March, the Gwalior Range IG had fined a police inspector Rs 10,000 for
furnishing misleading information in response to an RTI filed by Chaturvedi. He
had sought documents under which he was put under 24x7 camera surveillance by
his personal security officers in 2017. Action was also taken against the then
Jhansi Road police station TI Rajkumar Sharma, following a report submitted by
Gwalior SP Navneet Bhasin.
Four
IPS officers have already conducted an inquiry into the matter. Chaturvedi had
earlier moved high court, alleging mental trauma caused by camera surveillance
‘under the guise of security’.
In
September 2017, the court had issued notices to the home department, DGP and
top officials of Gwalior police. It was the first petition of the kind after
Supreme Court had ruled that ‘Right to Privacy’ is an integral part of Right to
Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
During
arguments in the court, the prosecution said that Chaturvedi was kept under
camera surveillance for his own safety and also requested the court to direct
him to ‘return the camera’.
Chaturvedi
alleged that senior police officers had instructed his PSOs to video record all
his activities.