Judge upset with registry over failure to install CCTV camera in his chamber

Raising a volley of questions in this regard, he also directed the registry to explain the difficulties faced by it in installing the CCTV camera in his chamber despite him informing that it can be installed either through the allotted chamber funds or at his own cost.

Observing that the said direction was given by this court only to stand as an example on account of growing incidences of sexual harassment in work places across the county, Justice Subramaniam, said, “Two weeks lapsed, three weeks lapsed and now, four weeks lapsed. Nothing happened, is the painful situation.”

“When the chamber of a judge is a ‘public office’, then there cannot be any inference in respect of the installation of CCTV camera especially when it is both for security purposes and to function transparently,” he added.

The issue pertains to an order passed in a sexual harassment case moved by a woman IPS officer against her superior officer at Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Justice Subramaniam while recommending to the government to consider the installation of CCTV cameras, in the offices of higher officials, had directed the registry to install a camera in his chamber within two weeks in a bid to set an example to others amid growing instances of sexual harassment in work places.

Now, while quoting several Supreme Court orders in the present interim order issued on Monday citing a Supreme Court order, that installation of CCTV cameras will be in the interest of Justice, Justice Subramaniam said, “The chamber of a judge is certainly a public office and there cannot be any interpretation other than this. Chambers of the high court judge is used as a court hall for conducting in-camera proceedings and to deal administrative files, judicial orders and for dictation of judgements.”

Also, seeking to know as to whether in the absence of judicial order, he has got the powers to install CCTV camera in the interest of his own security as well as in the interest of justice, Justice Subramaniam posted the case to March 15 for reporting compliance.