INTRODUCTION
In the proceedings of In Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations, SMW(C) No. 7/2025 conducted on 25 November 2025, the Supreme Court has granted 3 weeks to the States and UTs that have not filed their compliance affidavits in the matter relating to the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the Suo-motu case of the lack of functional CCTV Cameras in police stations across the country.
BACKGROUND
This could be traced to 4 September 2025, when the Court called for registration of a suo motu case in the public interest with regard to the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took the action based on a report published by Dainik Bhaskar, as per which around 11 people died in police custody in the last seven to eight months this year. The whole of this proceedings reiterates the judgement in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 64, where it was mandated by the Supreme Court that all State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station functioning under them. However, compliance remained patchy, with many cameras either not installed or lying defunct.
On the proceedings held on 15 September, 2025, the Supreme Court expressed that it was considering independent monitoring of the CCTV cameras in police stations without any human intervention, as even if CCTVs are installed in compliance with the Court’s earlier directions, the same can be switched off by officials. On the proceedings held on 26 September, 2025, the Supreme Court passed an order putting 12 queries to the State of Rajasthan, including whether regular audits are carried out to ensure the functioning of CCTVs. The Court further asked the government to state the period for which CCTV footage of police stations is preserved. It also questioned whether there is provision for surprise inspections and forensic validation of tamper proofing.
KEY POINTS
As per the orders of the Supreme Court, it is pertinent to ensure that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered, CCTV cameras should be installed at all entry and exit points; main gate of the police station; all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby/the reception area; all verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s room; Sub-Inspector’s room; areas outside the lock-up room; station hall; in front of the police station compound. In short no part of the police station should be left unsupervised.
It was also directed by the Supreme Court that CCTV systems that have to be installed must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In areas in which there is either no electricity and/or internet, it shall be the duty of the States/Union Territories to provide the same as expeditiously as possible using any mode of providing electricity, including solar/wind power. The internet systems that are provided must also be systems which provide clear image resolutions and audio. Recording systems should be such that data stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18 months. The duty and responsibility for the working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be that of the SHO of the police station concerned.
Precisely, the direction is that CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place. The directives showcase that any kind of failure to install or maintain CCTV cameras compromises the right to life, opens space for custodial violence. It is clear that compliance must be viewed through the prism of constitutional accountability rather than bureaucratic convenience.
In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 64, the Court had observed that whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same. Such complaints may not only be made to the State Human Rights Commission, but also to Human Rights Courts, which must then be set up in each District of every State/Union Territory under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The Commission/Court can then immediately summon CCTV camera footage in relation to the incident for its safe keeping, which may then be made available to an investigation agency in order to further process the complaint made to it.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court in its most recent hearing further observed that in case of non-compliance with the deadline, Chief Secretaries are to be present in the Court on the next hearing. As of now only 11 states have responded to the queries that the bench had raised. The next hearing of the matter is to be held on 16 December 2025, upon which the the compliance affidavits should be filed by the remaining states/UTs in any other case the Principal Secretary and Director of respective state agencies shall remain present before this Court along with their explanations for not complying with the orders of the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s order is an undeniable reminder of the cardinal principle that custodial spaces must be transparent and surveilled to protect human dignity. The objective is to prevent any kind of abuse that could possibly happen during the police custody and interrogations. Most importantly, this signifies that the State must be held accountable for the opacity in police stations and constitutional rights can in no way be compromised by administrative failure or infrastructural gaps.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY : AMYUKTA RAJAGOPAL
