The Supreme Court of India in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) mandates comprehensive court security upgrades including CCTV installation and digitization of court proceedings to enhance transparency, safety, and accountability across judicial premises.

Introduction

The 2017 case Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India evolved into a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2023 focused on court security and judicial transparency. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the installation of CCTV cameras and modern digital tools within courtrooms nationwide. The Court balanced the need for transparency and judicial independence, establishing a roadmap to improve safety and technology integration in India’s justice system.

Facts of the Case

This PIL, ongoing since 2015, gained urgency after serious incidents, including:

• Multiple shootings inside court premises in Delhi over the past year, raising concerns about judge and public safety.

• The suspicious death of a judge in Dhanbad, Jharkhand (2021), originally deemed accidental but suspected foul play, underscoring security vulnerabilities even outside court buildings.

These events exposed critical lapses in court security infrastructure.

Issues Presented

• Can courts function as pillars of justice if security is compromised?

• How can litigants trust the judicial process when judges and lawyers face safety threats?

• What systemic reforms are required to safeguard court premises and stakeholders?

Judgment Highlights

1. Mandatory Court Security Measures

• State-wise Security Plans: High Courts must develop detailed security protocols with State Home Departments and Police forces covering all court levels.

• Permanent Security Units: Establish trained, armed/unarmed personnel dedicated to court security with specialized training and incentives.

2. CCTV Installation

• Courts must implement district-specific CCTV surveillance plans.

• CCTV to be mandatory in all new court constructions.

• High Courts to supervise privacy and data protection protocols related to CCTV usage.

3. Enhanced Entry and Exit Controls

• Deployment of police and security personnel.

• Mandatory frisking, metal detectors, biometric entry passes, and baggage scanners.

• Regulation of footfall and access with court-specific passes.

4. Emergency Preparedness

• Ensure ambulance access, fire safety, and on-site medical facilities.

5. Vendor and Commercial Activity Regulation

• Strict oversight of commercial vendors operating within court complexes.

6. Digitization of Courts

• Adoption of audiovisual (AV) and video conferencing (VC) systems to record testimonies, especially in criminal cases.

• Enable live streaming of hearings for greater public transparency.

• Establish e-SEWA Kendras to assist citizens digitally.

• Prioritize tech upgrades for district courts lacking facilities.

• Assign implementation to Court Management Committees or special judicial-administrative bodies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court emphasized that installing CCTV cameras alone is insufficient. A comprehensive, coordinated approach is necessary to safeguard judicial premises and modernize the justice delivery system. High Courts and State authorities must enforce the guidelines promptly to prevent security lapses and enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency.