Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, on 18 August 2025, directed the Registry to expeditiously complete the process of installing CCTV cameras in the High Court premises. The Court recorded that despite its earlier order mandating installation by January 2024, the process remained incomplete. The Court observed its helplessness in the face of persistent delays but reiterated that compliance must be ensured in letter and spirit. The matter has been adjourned for further consideration on 26 August 2025, with instructions that the Registrar General’s report be preserved in sealed cover until the proceedings conclude.

The matter originated from proceedings in which multiple civil applications were filed in relation to a Special Civil Application of 2019. Over the course of the litigation, several applications for directions, amendments, and vacating interim reliefs were filed between 2021 and 2025.

Also Read: Govts Must Not Extract Regular Work From Ad-hoc Workers | Cannot Exploit Them | Must Create Sanctioned Posts For Recurring Jobs : Supreme Court

On 8 August 2025, the Court had ordered the Registrar General to submit a report regarding compliance with an earlier direction concerning the installation of CCTV cameras. This direction traced back to Special Criminal Application No. 996 of 2020, in which the High Court had, towards the end of 2023, ordered the installation of CCTV cameras across the Registry and important corridors of the High Court campus. The implementation was to be completed by January 2024.

However, upon perusal of the report submitted by the Registrar General in compliance with the 8 August 2025 order, the Court noted with surprise that although the process had been initiated, it had not been completed. The Court observed that approvals had been obtained from the Purchase Committee and the IT Committee, but that subsequent handling by the Registrar (IT) resulted in undue delays. The Court remarked that the matter appeared to have been "placed under the carpet" rather than executed in due time. The report indicated that the process was still at the stage of finalizing specifications and inviting tenders.

The case record shows that the judicial concern with transparency in the functioning of the High Court underpinned the original direction for CCTV installation. The Court stated that the objective was to ensure accountability and to provide an evidentiary trail in cases of alleged wrongs within the administrative process.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt recorded several pointed observations on the state of compliance with the earlier order. The Court stated: "On perusing the said report, this Court is surprised to know that though the order of installation of CCTV cameras is passed in Special Criminal Application No.996 of 2020 at the end of the year 2023 and is supposed to be implemented by January, 2024, the events narrated in the report and documents indicate that such process though initiated, but delayed and not completed yet."

The Court recorded that the earlier direction had been given with the object of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the High Court. Justice Bhatt stated: "This Court had passed the order by way of exhortation to see that the functioning which is going on in the premises of the highest Court of this State is transparent and in case of some wrongs which are alleged in the process, the same can be traced out with the help of such CCTV footages and therefore this Court had passed the order to install CCTV cameras in every corner of the Registry by covering every table as well as the important places in the corridors of the High Court as well as other important places of the High Court campus."

The Court observed that its attempt had been misunderstood. Justice Bhatt recorded: "It seems that this attempt is misunderstood as renegade by the concerned persons." The Court clarified that the direction had been given in the larger interest of the institution and as an exemplar for other courts. The Court noted with concern: "Unfortunately, it seems that the said order is considered as 'a storm in a tea cup' and viewed by predilection."

The Court further observed that while committees of the Court had approved the measure, subsequent administrative handling by the Registrar (IT) had stalled progress. The Court stated: "Thereafter, it seems that the concerned Registrar (IT) at the relevant point of time has tried to place this matter under the carpet by misleading the concerned persons. Otherwise, this much time which has taken for the completion of this process is unacceptable."

Justice Bhatt compared the delay to bureaucratic inefficiency, observing: "This process can be equated with the process of the other departments of some of the government institutions whereby the Courts are observing that it is nothing but red tapism." The Court then provided a clarification: "It is clarified that 'red-tape' refers to excessive or unnecessary bureaucratic rules, regulations and formalities that hinder or delay action, decision-making, or implementation processed."

The Court recorded its dismay, noting that both the High Court and the Supreme Court have been insisting on the implementation of CCTV cameras across important institutions. It observed: "Though this High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court is insisting for implementation of CCTV cameras in all the important institutions like police stations, highways and important roads and offices of government institutions, such delay in the implementation of the order passed by this Court for installation of the CCTV cameras in the High Court is prima facie unbelievable and this Court is showing helplessness in such situation."

The Court stated that the Registry should have been prepared to comply promptly. Justice Bhatt remarked: "In fact, the Registrars and Registry of this Court should be considered as Omnia paratus. Unfortunately, in the present case, for the reasons best known to the concerned Registrar, more particularly, Registrar (IT), the process is delayed and yet not completed."

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court | Punishment Without Proof Of Misconduct Is Perversity | Orders Against Constable Quashed, Service Benefits Restored

The report, the Court recorded, revealed that the matter was still at the stage of specification finalization and tendering. Justice Bhatt concluded his observations by stating: "This Court expects that the order of this Court will be complied with in its true letter and spirit by the concerned persons in the Registry as expeditiously as possible."

The Court issued clear directions on the future course of proceedings. Justice Bhatt ordered that: "With the above observations, considering the fact that above observations are having some relevance for the issue which cropped up in the present matters, the present applications are listed for further consideration on 26.8.2025." The Court thereby adjourned the matter to later in August for continued oversight.

The Court also directed the handling of the report submitted by the Registrar General. Justice Bhatt ordered: "The report which is submitted by the Registrar General be again put in sealed cover and kept with the Court Master till the matter is pending before this Court. Thereafter, the Court Master will submit the report to the Registrar (Judicial) for placing it in the file."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Advocate Vyom H. Shah
For the Respondents: Government Pleader

Case Title: Babubhai Sampatbhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 23158 of 2019 with connected Civil Applications

Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt