SC seeks mechanism to check manual intervention in CCTVs in police stations
The Supreme Court stressed the need for a monitoring system for police station CCTVs to prevent custodial violence, ensuring compliance and oversight.
The Supreme Court on Monday underlined the need for an oversight mechanism to ensure manual intervention to switch off CCTVs installed at police stations can be monitored at a central control room to ensure cases of custodial violence and torture by policemen do not go unpunished.
The court made the suggestion while hearing a suo motu petition arising from a news report published in Rajasthan which reported 11 from police stations across the state in the year 2025 so far. The court took cognizance of this news report and instituted a case titled “Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in police stations” early this month and took up the matter on Monday for passing further directions.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “We are of the view that the issue is of oversight. How do we ensure compliance in police stations having CCTVs which are switched off by the police officers.”
The court was aware of a pending case in the Paramvir Singh Saini Vs Baljit Singh matter, in which its 2018 and 2020 ruling laid down the most comprehensive framework for CCTV installation across all police stations.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae in the other pending case, stepped forward to assist in this matter too. Dave said that the court has been faced with the issue of police torture and custody which is still a reality despite these orders. He told the court that still there are states which have not complied with the mandatory directions to install CCTVs and the problem of internet connectivity was an issue flagged by states in setting this facility in rural police stations.
The court told Dave that while installation of CCTVs needs to be physically verified, its operation needs to be remotely monitored too. “We are thinking of a control room where the moment a CCTV is switched off, such manual intervention gets flagged at the control room. This way, every CCTV feed can be monitored,” the bench said.
Dave pointed out that not just in police stations, the problem is relevant even in central investigating agencies. He highlighted that interrogations by central agencies like the CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO were equally vulnerable to abuse. However, even these agencies are yet to comply with the court’s direction, he added.
The bench noted that before passing orders on the centralised control room, it will require assistance of IITs to provide a software on the suggested lines. Also, it underscored the need for conducting physical inspection of police stations to further strengthen its orders seeking rollout of CCTVs by police stations at all locations in the police station complex where public dealing is involved.
The court posted the matter for September 26 for passing orders in this regard and allowed Dave to submit a note to the court in three days.
The 2020 order in the Paramvir Saini case directed CCTVs to 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; outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer’s room and back area of the police station.
The order was passed while examining a case of custodial torture from Punjab. It mandated that cameras must have night vision, record both audio and video, and store data for at least one year, preferably 18 months.
While dealing with that matter, the court was informed about its earlier decision of April 2018 passed in this case which required Centre to set up an Oversight Committee to ensure audio-video recording of crime scene investigation and recording statements of accused under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The court’s concern over keeping police stations under check emanated prior to the passing of these orders. In DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (2015), while enforcing safeguards against custodial torture, the top court had backed the suggestion of having CCTV cameras in all police stations and prisons. However, it was left to the states to identify sensitive police stations and begin phased installation.
The matter had again attracted the court’s attention in Shafi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), where it directed every state to create independent oversight mechanisms to periodically review CCTV footage and publish reports. The present move by the court to take suo motu cognizance is a further step in this direction to ensure transparency in the operations of law enforcement agencies.
