Repeated Coincidences: High Court Quotes James Bond To Slam UP Police 'Fictional Stories' On CCTV Failures; Orders Chief Secy Probe

Slamming the UP Police for 'repeated coincidences' concerning failures of CCTV cameras installed in the police stations, a bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani has clarified that accountability in such cases will have to be fixed on the top police officials.

"…the time has now come that accountability should also be made to follow the law of gravity i.e. accountability to flow from top to bottom and not the other way around where Constables/Head Constables/SubInspectors/Inspectors are made the scapegoat”.

Importantly, the High Court has directed that the Chief Secretary's inquiry must also explore the requisite guidelines to be issued for fixing the responsibility of, at least, the highest police authorities working in the district.

In its 7-page order, the division bench pointed out that it was not the case that only a few cameras were not working, but it was being noticed repeatedly that whenever the courts required CCTV footage from the concerned police station, they were informed that the cameras were out of order

Hence, the bench made a prima facie remark that a 'fictional story' was being put up by the authorities in order to enable them to escape from the strict rigours of preservation of the CCTV footage and of producing the same before a Court of law as and when required

Interestingly, noticing the repeated coincidences happening in many cases, the bench quoted the famous lines popularised by Ian Fleming in the James Bond movie Goldfinger:

'Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

For context, the bench was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by one Shyam Sundar, a 56-year-old physically disabled man with 40% disability. He had alleged that he was subjected to brutal physical assault and custodial torture by the Sultanpur police in the intervening night of September 6-7, 2025.

The petitioner, who challenged the FIR lodged against him under Section 109 BNS, had also sought a specific direction for the preservation of CCTV footage from the concerned Police Station. to substantiate his claims of police atrocities.

However, when the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, to produce the said footage, it was informed that the cameras had been shut since June 1, 2025.

The Court found this submission "patently strange" as it noted that there was no General Diary (GD) entry regarding the cameras being non-functional since June, nor was any communication sent to the technical section for months. It was further noted that only after the Court passed an order in September 2025 did the machinery suddenly move to repair the cameras.

The Court also noted that, in various matters, it has repeatedly found that, as soon as CCTV footage is required to be preserved or submitted by the authorities, the cameras are found not to be working.

The Bench further highlighted that this 'lackadaisical' attitude of the police was in gross contempt of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and Ors, which mandated the preservation of CCTV footage for minimam 6 months to 18 months.

The bench also noted that the police conduct violated a circular issued by the UP Director General of Police on June 20, 2025, which required footage preservation for at least two and a half months.

Hence, in an attempt to curb this "negligence and carelessness", the Court has now ordered the Chief Secretary to issue the requisite guidelines fixing responsibility on the highest authorities of the district, such as the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police.

The Chief Secretary has been directed to submit the inquiry report and guidelines in the form of a personal affidavit by February 23, 2026, failing which he will have to appear in person before the Court.