AI traffic cameras: Kerala High Court dismisses Congress leaders' plea for probe into Safe Kerala project

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition moved by Congress member and leader of the opposition in the Kerala assembly, VD Satheesan, and Congress leader and Member of the Legislative Assembly Ramesh Chennithala, seeking a court-monitored enquiry into the Safe Kerala Project, which involves the installation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) cameras across the State to reduce road accidents [VD Satheesan MLA & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that the petitioners had not made out a case to indicate that there was any malafides in the project or its execution.

The project, called "Automated Traffic Enforcement System for Safe Kerala" was envisioned by the Transport Department to install AI (artificial intelligence) cameras across the length and breadth of the State, which would capture traffic violations and issue notices to traffic rule violators.

The petition alleged that the award of tenders for the installation of AI cameras resulted in nepotism, favouritism, and corruption, including a violation of privacy rights recognised in the Puttaswamy case.

It was contended that by putting private entities in charge of information of citizens, the State government has violated the right to privacy, well as well as provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules.

"The confidential and private data of the individuals including their driving license and other information from Vahan are left to the mercy of private operators who only eyes their profit margin. Hence the Exhibit-P27 order, which allows for the privacy of the people of the State be violated with impunity, by private companies is in violation of the right of Privacy which has been declared as a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttuswamy case. When the only authority to impose fines on the violators of traffic rules is the concerned officer in the Motor Vehicle Department, holding the rank of MVI or AMVI, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, the said duty is now cast on the hands of private companies which will access private data of citizens, impose fines and also provide payment facility," the PIL stated.

This transfer of power from the hands of statutory authorities to private companies is contended to be per se illegal, which in turn makes the fines imposed unenforceable in the eyes of the law, the plea added.

It was also claimed that the project involved a pyramid style of corruption right from the start when the work order was issued to a State government company called KELTRON, even though the finance department had raised serious objections regarding their capability to execute the same.

Further, while awarding subsequent tenders and sub-leasing the SLA (service-level agreement), to SRIT India Pvt. Ltd and Presadio Technologies Pvt. Ltd., respectively, there was a lot of corruption involved, the opposition leaders claimed.

Therefore, they contended that a court-monitored probe was needed in the matter as the investigating agencies in the State as well as central agencies have seemingly turned a blind eye to it all.

"Unfortunately, the investigating agency of the State is under the command and control of persons who are the beneficiaries of the transaction. Since the corruption is conducted at the top echelons of power, the State Police is completely helpess in the matter. The Central agencies which would have been a natural choice have demonstrated that they will not take any investigation in a route that will harm the current State Government," the plea stated.

The petitioners further alleged that the government jumped the gun and used outdated technology, resulting in a waste of public money.

For these reasons, among others, the congress leaders sought a court-monitored probe into the project with a view to protect public money.

The petitioners were represented by advocates Nisha George, J Vishnu, Arun Chandran, AL Navaneeth Krishnan and Sidharth R Wariyar.

Detailed judgment awaited.