'Prima Facie Contempt': High Court Slams UP DGP's Circular Limiting CCTV Storage To 2 Months Despite SC Mandate Of 6-18 Months

A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani termed the circular as extremely strange and observed that the same was in “prima facie contempt” of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors., which mandates a minimum storage period of six months, extending up to 18 months.

The court has now directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file his personal affidavit on a range of issues that have come to light. The bench is presently dealing with a writ petition filed by Rubi Singh and others, who alleged that the Unnao Police Officials had illegally detained them, assaulted them in police custody.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioners alleged that they were picked up by the police officials on August 5, 2025, on the basis of an FIR lodged against two of their relatives under Section 306 BNS. They submitted that no arrest memo was prepared.

It was further alleged that the petitioner No.1, who is a lady, was illegally confined in the lockup at night on August 7, and obscene remarks were made against her. They also alleged that the petitioners, Nos. 2 & 3, were released only after a payment of Rs . 10K was made to the Sub-Inspector.

In their petition, they sought lodging of an FIR into the matter, an investigation by CBI/SIT, compensation for the alleged atrocities committed against them, as well as an inquiry against the erring police officials.

Furthermore, they also sought the preservation of CCTV footage from August 5, 2025, to August 8, 2025, to substantiate their allegations of police atrocities.

Court proceedings

On November 25, 2025, the High Court sought the personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, and also directed him to preserve and produce the CCTV footage for the relevant period.

However, the SP concerned informed the bench that the footage was not available. The SP relied on a circular issued by the UP DGP on June 20, 2025, which states that police stations have been provided with 5 CCTV cameras and 10TB of storage, allowing for the retention of only 2 to 2.5 months of recordings.

The Court expressed shock at this submission. It noted that while the DGP's circular explicitly refers to the Supreme Court's directions in the Paramvir Singh Saini case, the circular's operational directive directs the storage for only approximately 60 days and this is in violation of the SC Judgment.

Essentially, the SC Judgment provides for the preservation of CCTV Footage for a period of 18 months and mandates that all States purchase storage drives capable of retaining footage for the maximum permissible period, and, in any case, for at least 1 year.

The Court further noted that the Apex Court had specifically directed that posters in police stations must inform the public that CCTV footage is retained for a minimum period of six months.

“We fail to understand the logic of the Director General of Police in issuing the aforesaid circular despite referring to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.12.2020 which mandated that the CCTV footage storage should not to be less than six months and thereafter, issuing the circular providing that the storage should be preserved for a period of two to two and a half months!!!”, the Bench remarked as it added that the circular prima facie runs in contempt to the Supreme Court's order.

Apart from this issue, the bench also flagged serious procedural violations in the case as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court noted that in his affidavit, the SP, Unnao, had admitted that Petitioner No. 1, a woman, was called to the police station on August 7 for questioning.

The HC found this action to be in gross violation of the proviso to Section 179 (1) BNSS, which mandates that no woman shall be required to attend any place other than her residence for examination by the police.

The Court also noted that the affidavit was silent on whether any written notice was issued to the petitioners or if reasonable expenses were paid to them for attending the police station, as required under Section 179(2) BNSS.

The Bench also questioned whether the State Government had even framed the necessary rules for such payments, despite the Act coming into force on July 1, 2024.

The Court also took strong exception to the handling of corruption allegations against the police personnel. The SP's affidavit admitted that there was some semblance of truth in the allegations that the police personnel were demanding money.

However, the only action taken was to send two police personnel to the Reserve Police Lines and to initiate a preliminary inquiry.

The bench described this action as a “cavalier and lackadaisical attitude” and said that if personnel were found discussing money, the authorities should have proceeded strictly under service rules rather than adopting 'short-cuts' like transferring them to police lines.

Further, given the gravity of the issues involved in the present case, the High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit within three weeks on the following issues:

• As to in what circumstances, the Director General of Police of the State of U.P. has issued the circular referring to the order of the Supreme Court and then providing that the storage should be maintained for a period of two to two and a half months;

• As to whether the State Government has framed the rules as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 179 of the Act, 2023 more particularly when the Act, 2023 has come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024, and if the rules have not been framed then within how much time they would be framed and;

• As to in what circumstances the petitioner No.1 i.e. the lady was summoned to the police station and whether prior to her summoning a written notice had been sent and if not what action is proposed to be taken against the police personnel who summoned the petitioner No.1 i.e. the lady in gross violation of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 179 of the Act, 2023

The Court clarified that the reason as to why the Chief Secretary of the State was being directed to file his personal affidavit is that “although the entire action in the matter was to be taken by the Director General of the Police keeping in view the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) yet once the circular dated 20.06.2025 has been issued by the Director General of Police which is prima facie contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.12.2020, as such, it is in the fitness of things that the Chief Secretary of the State should file his personal affidavit”.

The matter is listed for the next hearing on January 29, 2026. The Court warned that if the affidavit is not filed, the Chief Secretary must appear in person with the records.