'Mere Installation Of CCTVs In Police Stations Not Enough, They Should Also Work Properly': Supreme Court In Suo Motu Case

In the suo-motu case taken up over lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across Rajasthan, Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court said that mere installation of CCTVs is not enough - the same should also work perfectly.

During the hearing, the Rajasthan government also apprised the Court that an additional budget of Rs.75 crores was sanctioned yesterday and each police station in the state will have 16 CCTVs, instead of 12, by March 31.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. It highlighted issues like connectivity, maintenance, data storage, oversight, etc. as key concerns. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (Amicus Curiae) on the other hand emphasized the importance of having a centralized dashboard.

The Amicus also pointed out that requisite affidavits have not been filed in the suo motu case. When enquired as to which authority has not done the needful, he submitted that the Union and States of Gujarat and Chhattisgarh have not filed affidavits in the suo motu case. "NIA has filed an affidavit, but nothing effective has been said...Jharkhand, Odisha and NIA have given just for the sake of filing...it's not an empty formality", he added.

At this point, the bench noted that some authorities have filed affidavits in the connected Paramvir Singh Saini case. "Now it is the suo motu which is being monitored", Justice Nath conveyed to the respondents' counsels.

The Amicus further referred to States of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Rajasthan as "model states", which have given a positive response that can be emulated by other states. Thereafter, the bench suggested that the Amicus have a virtual conference with Home Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of all states/UTs. Additional Solicitor General Thakre and Addl. Advocate Generals of the states can also join this meeting, the Court said, while fixing a date for the VC.

In this regard, Justice Mehta asked the Amicus to impress upon states other than the 3 model states to adopt the latter's best practices. "Maybe some states can come up with better ideas", said Justice Nath.

Notably, the Amicus also suggested to the Court that the Union may be asked to come up with a software for a centralized dashboard, which can then be adopted by states. On this, Justice Mehta said, "software can be developed by anyone, Kerala is far ahead of everyone...they have developed indigenous software in High Court also, they have their indigenous software without falling back on any outsourcing agency". The Amicus acknowledged the observation, but highlighted that there are much more resources at the Union's command.

Before parting, the Amicus also informed the Court that States of Jharkhand and Haryana have still not complied with the Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini case. Displeased, Justice Nath warned the state(s) to file proper affidavits, else strictures may be passed.

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, 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, it 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.

On October 14, 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 emphasized that the police station camera feeds have to go to some centralized agency, like 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 Title:

(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)