Issues

A.Whether installing AI-powered CCTV cameras/CCTV cameras inside the prison complex,
including the cells of inmates, is a violation of their right to privacy?

B. Whether the imposition of the condition that WalterWhite will share his live location with the
SHO of the local police station at all times while being on bail is a violation of his Right to Privacy?

Arguments on behalf of respondent

ARTICLE 14: UNEQUALS CANNOT BE TREATED AS EQUALS -

The Indian Supreme Court, as exemplified in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of India,
established two essential conditions for reasonable classification:

Intelligible Differentia

The classification must be based on intelligible differentia, clearly distinguishing between grouped
individuals or goods and those excluded from the group."Intelligible differentia" refers to a clear and
rational basis for differentiating one group from another, crucial for justifying reasonable classifications in
law, ensuring that distinctions are not arbitrary or discriminatory. Prisoners can be clearly differentiated
from normal citizens. Considering their previous conduct, there is abundant caution required to be
exercised.

Rational Relation to Object

The object that is tried to be achieved here is the collective safety of the public as well as to enusre
peaceful environment inside the prison complex. Installation of cctv cameras is an opt preliminary
measure to achieve this object. The presence of cameras will incresease the accountability of the inmates
as well as the prison officers. This measure is adopted not only monitor the activities of the prisoners but
also in someway ensure their safety to an extent. This can reduce abuse and escape from prison. More
importantly, custodial deaths can be significantly reduced because of the continous monitoring.

Even the landmark Puttaswamy case, established the three-fold test for testing whether any State action
violates the fundamental right to privacy. The three criteria to be met are: 'legality', 'need', and
'proportionality'. The executive action derives its legality from the case Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri
vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P in which crucial guidelines to prevent police abuse and protect
human rights during arrest and detention, focusing on the rights of individuals in police custody and the
accountability of law enforcement was established. The guidelines included setting up of cctv cameras. It
must also be noted the Gujarat High court in a recent case Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai vs. State of
Gujarat citing the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others, and the Judgment in the case
of DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal and others, for the guidelines passed by the Court concerning CCTV
camera systems in police stations. The bench had laid down:

●​ CCTV cameras should remain functional and that SHO must report to the authorities in case of
fault in equipment in order to effectuate immediate repair or replacement. There should be regular
maintenance of CCTV data, backup of data, fault rectification by the SHO.
●​ CCTV cameras must be installed at all entry, exit points, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, reception
areas, verandas, Inspector's room, station hall, station compound, outside washrooms etc.
●​ The cameras must be equipped with night vision and consist of audio and video footage. The
records of the CCTV camera must be preserved for 18 months and not less than 1 year.
●​ In the instance, that force is used, the State Human Rights Commission should be
immediately approached for redressal.
●​ The Union of India also directed CCTV cameras in the offices of CBI, NIA, ED, NCB,DRI and
the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and any other agency which carried out interrogations and
had the power of arrest.

It is very evident from the flow of the guidelines framed that it essentially focuses on the safety of the
inmates and timely intervention to be made in case of any violation. Adding to this, by way of adopting
this measure any foul play inside the prison can be brought into record. This satisfies the test of
propotionality. The counsel for the respondent is not ignorant of the fact that high court judgements do not
hold binding value on Supreme court but it only cited to indicate the reasoning behind adopting the
measure. It must also be noted that it is in concern of their privacy the convience and restrooms are left
without cctv coverage.

RESTRICTION ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: THREAT TO NATIONAL

It is a well known fact that every citizen is entitiled to Part III rights but it is also equally true that they are
not unrestricted. This is very clear from the verbatim of the law itself and it is also reiterated from to time
to time in pleathora of cases. It's important to note that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
rights guaranteed under Article 21 in the interests of public order, national security, public health, or
morality. It is very evident from the facts in hand that Walter white is drug lord and he was instrumental in
funding several terrorist organizations and also promoted narco-terrorism. If he is left unmonitored it
might cause a huge security threat to the country.

It must also be noted that priosners have only limited rights. The US supreme court in the case Palmerv.
Hudson held that A prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell entitling him to
the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. While prisoners enjoy many
protections of the Constitution that are not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or
incompatible with the objectives of incarceration, imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss
of many rights as being neces- sary to accommodate the institutional needs and objectives of prison fa-
cilities, particularly internal security and safety. It would be impossible to accomplish the prison
objectives of preventing the introduction of weapons, drugs, and other contraband into the premises if
inmates re- tained a right of privacy in their cells.

As to the arguement of precendtiary value of this judgement although this may not be the law of the land
under Article 142 of the Constitution of Indiana, they still hold a highest persuasive value.

LAW PROHIBITS ONLY THE IMPOSITION OF FREAKISH CONDITIONS

When granting bail, courts in India can impose conditions to ensure the accused's presence during the trial
and to prevent potential harm or interference with the legal process. These conditions are not meant to be
punitive but to ensure compliance and mitigate risks. The grant of bail and the imposition of conditions
are governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), specifically sections 478 and
483. Even the case, Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi) stated that it is well settled that while
exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the
Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the
court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious
conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. In the case of Kunal
Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar it was held that there is no dispute that clause (c) of Section 437(3)
allows courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice.

Sharing the live location is not a unjust condition.Here the peculiar facts of the case lay out the
seriousness of letting out the petitioner in bail. It was in the pure interest of justice to ensure that the
sovereignity of the country is not put under threat solely beacause of the negligence of the government.
Tracking the petitioner continously can ensure that he doesnt get to meet any terrorist organization and
even if he does it can easily found out and they tracked down.

APPLICABILITY OF FRANK VITUS JUDGEMENT

The petitioner may hugely rely of on the case of Frank vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau. The major
point that must be noted here is that the cited judgement was decided by 2 judge bence whereby the
present case is being decided by 5 judge bench. It is also the the submission of the respondent that the
judgement has to reconsidered and is thus being challenged. The law laid down in the vitus case does not
take into account the collective safety of the public which can be adversely disrupted due the potential
acts of the petitioner.
It is emphasized that the respondent as parens patriae should the consider the welfare of the larger
population when the seriouness of the case is to an extent as mentioned in the facts of the present case.
The peace and safety of the whole nation can be put at stake because of the action of the petitioner, it
cannot be argued that his sole right is supreme to the to right of the larger public. It is a well settleed
principle of law that minor harm can be caused to prevent a greater harm. Here in the present case,
sharing live location cannnot be classified as a harm caused to the petitioner considering the object is
being tried to achieve.