I The WB National University ofJuridical Sciences "Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan" 12, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700098 Phone: (033) 233S 7397 / 0510 / 2806 / 2809 I 2811, 2569 4700 to 30 • Fax: (033) 2335 7422 / 0511 E-mail: info@nujs.edu • Gram: JURVARSITY • Website: www.nujs.edu STUDENT JURIDICAL ASSOCIATION To 'foe Vice Chancellor \XlBNUJS -- 700098 Dear Sir, SUB: RE: lNSTALL,\TION OF CCTV CAMERAS IN CLASSROOMS In pursuance of consultations with the General Body, we request the removal of closedcunut television ('CCIV') cameras that have been installed in the class rooms and other seminar/ discussion/ meeting rooms in the Academic Block recently. Before discussing the reasons behind our request, we invite your attention to the correspondence on this issue so far - sometime in the third week of l\llarch we were informed by the Registrar (Acting) that CCfV cameras shall be installed to safeguard the to-be-installed "expensive digital podiums" against vandalism from the students. In response, we infom1ed the Registrar (Acting) that there has been no known instance of student vandalism in the Academic Block histo1y ever, ma!<.ing such installation an unnecessa1y ~xpense. In addition, we requested him to kindly ensure that such installation, if executed at all, have rLuional nexus to the aim of protecting the podiums only. \Y/e we re given an assurance of favourable condition. Subsequently, sometime in the last week of l'vbrch, we ~itnessed the overnight installation of the proposed CC[Vs. Contrary to what was promised, two such CCfV cameras were installed in all LL.B. classrooms and they covered the entire classrooms. On noticing this development, we approached the Registrar (Acting) for a second time and urged him to consider removal of the CCTV installed at the back of all classrooms and re-positioning of the cameras such that they only covered the podium and its immediate surroundings in view of our diverse privacy concerns. The Registrar (Acting) assured us that he will, on a best effort basis, attempt to i ! ~ Scanned by CamScanner convince you of this request. A couple of days later, on inquiring· him for a third time we were informed that you have declined our request. 'Ibis was followed by the initiation of the recruitment process (Day Zero & Day One) on April 5 and 6, 2017 for the batch graduating next year. On April 10, 2017, we along with our Treasurer, two Administrative Secretaries and a General Body member who was deeply aggrieved by this occurrence approached you in your chamber at around 4:15 PM We again humbly represented our concerns regarding privacy, management of financial resources and related concerns in this meeting. However, we were infom1ed that the real objective behind the installation of these CCfVs was ensuring that faculty members were conducting full classes according to the prescribed schedule to remedy the lackadaisical behaviour of certain faculty members. We, yet again, proposed alternatives, cited the various concerns mentioned above, pointed to the misrepresentations on behalf of Registrar (Acting) and contended that the positioning of these cameras was not supported by this new line of reasoning either. However, we received no concrete or relevant responses. Shockingly, while the Registrar {Acting) has informed Legally India that the installations was 'far ser.urity purpae and exarrination purpae', you have cited "[that] it hel.ps to dJ«k ngularity, student faatlty interaaion, dasses, all thae things'' as the reason for the same. The public consultations that ensued as a result have cuhninated in this application in light of the following: GRIEVANCES 1. Privacy concerns. As representatives, the privacy of members of the General Body is of pivotal importance to us. In absence of any policy governing, regulating and ensuring privacy and related concerns of students with respect to these cameras, we find such surveillance to be an affront to our rights. Any kind of surveillance is always associated with authorities' intention to monitor groups that are deviant and a danger to the authority. Hence, use of surveillance cameras in an inclusive space such as classroom leads to an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion between the students, faculty and the concerned authority. Further, such visual surveillance instils a fear of constantly being watched. These clearly lead to erosion of ideas of privacy. A substantial segment of the students, especially female students, have also expressed concerns regarding their privacy and effectiveness of checks and balances to avoid misuse of the footage so recorded. These concerns are highly pertinent in light of multiple incidents of gendered and improper voyeuristic use of surveillance cameras from around the world. Given the various inconsistencies in representations made regarding the installation of CCTVs so far and the track record of the University in dealing with matters related to Scanned by CamScanner unwelcomed behaviour and seXUal harassment related grievances of the students and staff members, we firmly believe that the University should immediately cease the operation of these CCIVs in absence of a mutually-agreeable policy on the usage and regulation of the footage so recorded. In no circumstances can any footage so recorded be used to infringe upon the privacy of any of the students and visitors to this University. 2. Dilution of classroom atmosphere. In his work Disciplir!! and Amish: the Birth cf the Prison renowned philosopher Foucault uses the term 'panopticism' to illustrate that how disciplinary surveillance inevitably causes the subjects to attempt and conform to the authority's point of view - thus, leading to a destruction of autonomy, liberty and individuality. He adds that a state of conscious and constant visibility ensures "automatic functioning of power'. Such 'double vision' distotts the freedoms that make a classroom an enriching learning space. It affects the behaviour of the two stakeholders in a classroom i.e. students and faculty. Both students and faculty will be deterred, even if slightly, in communicating as freely and naturally through any visible signs or actions as they otherwise would in presence of such cameras. The psychological impact on the minds of students and faculty as a result of being watched is unquantifiable. Similarly, faculty members will have to consider the authority's viewpoint before finalising the inclusion of any written or media related content in classroom teaching or having an informal, interactive discussion in the classrooms. Since written and visual material used in classrooms fall directly under surveillance of cameras, it inevitably causes a chilling effect, thereby, hampering classroom discussions. As opposed to the right of physical and exclusive right to access classrooms, this amounts to mass surveillance - conferring the ability to be omnipresent, or at least the appearance of such an ability which no position bestows automatically on any human being. 3. Misrepresentations by the Registrar (Acting). As pointed out above, we were, inadvertently or otherwise, misrepresented on the circumstances and rationale behind installation of these cameras by the Registrar (Acting). This misrepresentation is an affront to the very objective behind a representative student body administration, wherein the communications between administration and student representatives ought to be sacrosanct in order to protect their effectiveness and value. The moment such communication is vitiated by misrepresentations; the very existence of such a system comes under question. The recession of such representations is regrettable and was condemned by an Scanned by CamScanner oveiwhelming majority of the students as a grave threat to our right of effective collective bargaining. 4. Exclusion of student community from the process. As students are the largest stakeholders in the University, it is rather unfonunate that the students were not consulted in any way before the whole process of setting up cameras was initiated. It is widely accepted that universities should always discuss crucial issues like visual surveillance with the students before taking actions on their behalf. Non-exclusion of student union in such policy discussions and a complete disregard of dissent by students have been criticised immensely. The administration at NALSAR, Hyderabad, which was mindful of the severe implications that such exclusion of students from the process of installation of CCfVs (not in classrooms) might have, should be the example which NUJS ought to follow. The NALSAR CCTV policy expressly prohibits installation of CCTVs in classrooms and discussion rooms, and also generally discourages installation of CCTVs which may "negatively affect the preservation of an environment that encourages free academic and intellectual inquiry". We believe it is a model worth emulating. The administration at NALSAR gave the students complete autonomy on drafting the policy governing positioning, purpose, usage, avoidance of misuse, etc. with respect to CCIV cameras that were installed. Basic courtesy and respect to the concerns and the wishes of the students before taking major decisions such as this is the bedrock of healthy student governance. 5. Inappropriate management of financial resources. As we suffer from financial woes which have caused our long-standing demands such as renovation of the Cess Pool and effective resolution of the hostel crunch issue for at least seven years now, the use of University funds for installation of at least two dozen cameras is questionable. The student body is deeply troubled by such use of funds without any proper consultation with their representatives and in obvious contradiction to all of the reasons cited by various officers of the University administration so far. 6. Disconnect with the stated pmpose. As we stated in the meeting dated April 10, to achieve the stated purpose of attendance of teachers and remedying lackadaisical attitude of certain members of the faculty inter cdia any of the following measures shall be more effective, costeffective and prudent: (a) proper action on the basis of student feedback; and in any case (b) installation of cameras only facing the teacher rather than the entire class. Surveillance of the entire classroom is overbroad and disproportionate with respect to the stated purpose of ensuring that faculty members are conducting proper classes. Scanned by CamScanner With respect to point (a) as stated above, we invite your kind attention to item number 5 in Repart Na 1 if 2016 if the NU]S S]A dated September 23, 2016 which was adopted by an overwhelming majority of students through a resolution passed by circulation on the same day. Relevant excerpts from pages 11 and 12 are as follows: "5. INACTION ON SERIOUS RF,CURRING CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN STUDENTS' FACULTY FEEDBACK 17?e um7.Er5ity has a /JY(XI!Ss in pk:e Jar student fe£ti/xuk on faadty rn.?rJ'lX?YS at the end if ezery senrster. For mmy )"4'5, there has b:en a dad mer the efficacy cfthis prrx15s, due to inforrrntion that, m ~t cases, the feedback farm 'l£ere na scmtinised senatSLy both by the/amity m:rrim or by the V la' OJancellor, and that there W:tS no amrunication to the student bafy as to any action taken on the hasis cf the feedback farm in order to rrend issues raised by students. %le rrnny cf our est~ famlty rrnrb!rs show gn:at effort and dedication and -prmide 1,/S wth higp quality acadenic expaure, there are SeU?raf W)I serials cw:erns wth res'{X'Ct to Sam? crxtrSes that haie ~ unaddresse.dfar rrnny )fa'5, leading to a serials dedine in teaching quality far rrnny subjects. For instance, students haie anistentfy faa:d issues in crxtrSes WJeYe only 4-5 dasses are cmduaed per senrster or in cames uhere Scop? if teaming rmterid is unrelated or wy distantly related to the subject mitter cfthe m,me or in cames 7ilJere dasses end after cnl,y 15-20 rrinut.es if muhing, These seria,ts an:erns haie ~ preu:,.lent in present fuuhes as W!Ll as the fuuhes that haie graduated, ~t there is no etiderKE cf irrprozenrnt on these grounds or ewz any rommnicatim or acknawedw,mt from the Vza, Chancellor that they haie taken aYi![lisance if these serials issues. This anistent inaaiaz in this regard also leads rmny students to klieze that the form rml not b: filled up sirxe they are~ taken seriously. A fier the student bafy wued seria1S cona?rr1S mer the process wth the V za, CJJancellar rndtiple tim!S, the Vire Chancellor in atr Gen?ral Baty Meeting dated January 14, 2014, and en later arasions mule representations to the student lxxiy that the feedbade prrxess uul b: inp/e,rmted rmreseriatSly(ANNEXURE 6). HOl£ElEr, rmdJ to cur disappoi:atrrl!l1t, this pranise has not bm fiJfilled E ien wth the intrrxluction cfthe cnl,inef mlb:uk rrechanism and rmk ing the fredbade form compulsory to dxain an exam hall ticket, the V za, Chancellor refuses to rmke any detail or outaJrrE iffeedbade prrx:ess knmm to the student bafy at larr;f:! far ea.dJ serrester and no comntnication has bm ?J,ien to the student bafy show that the V za, Chanadlor has taken aaed onJredbade prouded by the students. The reaming griemrm continue to appear ea.dJ serrester. This raises seriaf.5 daibts as to the efficacy and transparency cfthe V za, Chant:ellar in this rmtter. In the General Baty Meeting held on Septerrkr 21, 2016, the V za, OJanadlor WIS asked about the anistent inaaion on rmny griemnces raised, and the Vu:e-CJJancellor stated that the freclbuk form are anidered and som: faadty rmrlers are stx*,en to personally ngarrkng their freclbuk. HOllElEr, uhen asked about any mmanism if nvni.toring the implem?t1tation if feedlxuk, or S)5tem to ensure that reaming griemnces do na repeat in subsequent semsters, the V za, Chan