CCTVs In Police Stations | Supreme Court Directs Appearance Of Union Home Secretary ; Asks Why 'Kerala Model' Can't Be Followed

In the suo motu proceedings concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary on the next date of hearing to assist the Court in issuing directions for effective monitoring of CCTV installations across States. The Court also questioned why other States were not adopting the "Kerala Model" of live monitoring.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Bench that while most States had complied with the requirement of installing CCTV cameras, significant work remained in establishing dashboard systems for monitoring. He submitted that the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kerala were "outstandingly good" in this regard. Dave further highlighted that Kerala had developed the most efficient system so far, enabling police officers to directly log in through their phones and monitor police stations in real time, describing it as a "live monitoring" set up.

However, Dave pointed out deficiencies in certain States, stating that in Jharkhand, "no work has been done to install CCTVs in Jharkhand..."

During the hearing, Justice Mehta referred to recent reports a Pak-linked Spy Network using CCTV cameras to collect data in Indian states. He observed:

"The Government of India has itself given instructions to take down all cameras installed by the neighbouring country, because they are capturing data and sending it there"

He further remarked:

"I just came across a news item, where the government is thinking of pulling down all those cameras, so where will the states get the budget to put these cameras from?"

Justice Mehta also expressed concern about the broader financial and logistical implications of replacing surveillance infrastructure, stating:

"When there is a security issue, because these cameras are not only localised in the police station, they are at the other strategic locations, so once you start the process of replacement, they will do for all the cameras, and where will you get that bulk of cameras from?"

Responding to the Court's queries, Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare submitted that no specific instructions had yet been issued by the Union Government on this aspect. Dave added that while Kerala, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh had already established dashboard systems, other States, including Uttar Pradesh, were in the process of setting them up.

Justice Nath then questioned the lack of uniform adoption of best practices, observing:

"If you say that Kerala has the best set-up, why can't other states follow it?"

He further stressed the need for coordinated implementation, stating:

"States have to give 40%, 60% anyways, Union is funding, they can follow the Kerala model, tell them to discuss this....please take it up seriously, Mr Thakare, then we will pass an order, then you will come up with a recall application."

Expressing dissatisfaction with the pace of compliance, the Bench directed the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary at the next hearing, remarking:

"You bring your Home Secretary tomorrow..... probably he is not listening to you!"

The Court subsequently passed the following direction:

"After hearing Mr Dave, Ld Amicus, Mr Thakare for Union, and other counsels, let this matter come up tomorrow again, the Home Secretary, Union of India, to remain present before this court so that appropriate assistance can be drawn from him in the implementation of the scheme that is being monitored by this court."

Background

On September 4, 2025, 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 Justices Nath and 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.

Prior to that, in December 2020, the Court had mandated in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh 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 September 15,  2025 the Court expressed in the suo motu case 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 September 26,  2025, an order was passed 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 a provision for surprise inspections and forensic validation of tamper-proofing.

On October 14, 2025, the Court questioned the Rajasthan government as to why there were no CCTV cameras in the interrogation rooms of its police stations. Further, the Court called on the state to explain its stance on the 11 deaths stated to have occurred in police custody over the past 8-9 months. Justice Mehta also emphasised that the police station camera feeds have to go to some centralised agency, as footage of CCTVs installed on roads goes to command centres in Rajasthan, so that if a camera goes off, someone is notified and remedial steps are immediately taken.

Case Details : 

(1) IN RE LACK OF FUNCTIONAL CCTVS IN POLICE STATIONS Versus, SMW(C) No. 7/2025

(2) PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI Versus BALJIT SINGH, SLP (Crl) No.3543/2020 (and connected cases)