Noting that an administrative committee cannot withhold a judicial order, the Allahabad High Court recently expressed displeasure over the delay in circulating its directions for surprise inspections of police stations to check the functioning of CCTV cameras.

"This is very unfortunate that a judicial order has been kept pending merely because a Committee could not consider the same for circulation", the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal was informed that the Court's earlier order directing Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs) and Judicial Magistrates across Uttar Pradesh to randomly inspect police stations after court hours had not yet been circulated to all District Judges because the concerned committee was still considering it for approval.

The Court categorically remarked that it is an "established law" that the Judicial Order cannot be withheld by a Committee in an administrative side.

It added that if the Committee believes the order is not legally correct, it can send the matter to the Litigation Committee to challenge the order, but it can't sit on it.

The Court made these observations while hearing a criminal bail cancellation application filed by Sandeep Singh Solanki against the bail granted to the accused in a cheating case.

The Court noted that by an order dated February 19, 2026, the Court had directed that CJMs of all districts or the concerned JMs may randomly inspect police stations under their respective jurisdictions after court hours to check the functioning of CCTV cameras.

The inspection was to be conducted with prior intimation to the concerned District Judge.

The Court had clarified that such an inspection, undertaken to verify compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, would be considered part of the judicial officer's official duty.

The earlier order also stipulated thus:

"During this inspection, all the police officials shall cooperate with him and any hindrance or disrespect to any judicial officer will be dealt with strictly"

The High Court had further directed that the order be circulated to all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh.

Read more about the previous order and directions here: Faulty CCTVs A 'Routine Feature' In UP: Allahabad High Court Deems Surprise Police Station Inspections Part Of CJMs' Official Duty

While dealing with the present matter, the Court also referred to a recent Division Bench judgment in Mahendra Gaur and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, wherein the Allahabad High Court rfound a Station House Officer (SHO) responsible for the unlawful detention of 4 persons and directed the State to pay them a total compensation of ₹65,000.

The Court had also questioned the SHO over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case.

Noting the urgency, Justice Deshwal has now directed the concerned committee to circulate its February 19 order to all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh.

In its October 8 order, the Court also considered submissions about the alleged non-payment of compensation awarded to the accused for his illegal detention and alleged harassment by police officials after he approached the District Magistrate, Lalitpur, seeking release of the compensation amount.

The Court observed that the District Magistrate's act of sitting over the compensation application was 'contemptuous'.

It further stated that it was not aware whether the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, had taken action against the erring police officials in compliance with its earlier order.

Accordingly, the Court directed the DGP to provide instructions to the Additional Government Advocate on whether action had been taken against the erring police officials.

The Registrar (Compliance) was also directed to send a copy of the order to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, and the District Magistrate, Lalitpur, for compliance.

The matter will now be listed on October 27.