The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that a Warrant Officer appointed by the Court in a habeas corpus matter must be given immediate and unhindered access to CCTV systems and relevant recordings when visiting a police station to verify allegations of illegal detention. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 306]

Justice Virinder Aggarwal said that the ordinary requirement of obtaining permission from superior officers or accessing the system through an officer possessing the requisite password cannot be permitted to operate as a procedural impediment to the immediate execution of a judicial warrant.

The access cannot be made contingent on the ordinary departmental chain of permissions, the bench said, and directed the State's police machinery to put in place a dedicated, round-the-clock mechanism to ensure such access is granted immediately.

"...the respective Director Generals of Police are directed to review and suitably modify/supplement the existing departmental procedure/protocol governing access to CCTV systems, so as to incorporate therein a specific, expeditious and readily accessible mechanism for cases involving the sudden visit of a Warrant Officer appointed by this Court in connection with a  habeas corpus matter," it ordered.

The safeguards include:

• Time-bound Compliance and Modification of existing protocol
• Designation of Nodal Officer
• Display and Intimation of Contact Particulars
• Access Without Ordinary Permission Procedure
• Immediate Activation of CCTV
• Strict Compliance and Reporting of Non-Cooperation.

The Court was hearing a man's habeas corpus petition, alleging that his wife, Joginder Kaur, and daughter, Mamta Kamboj, had been illegally detained by the SHO and officials of Police Station Amir Khas, Fazilka.

The Court had earlier appointed a Warrant Officer to inspect the police station and secure the detenues' release if found in illegal confinement.

The Warrant Officer's report, filed after a surprise visit on 22.08.2026, found that the alleged detenues were not present at the police station at the time of inspection. However, the report also recorded that the petitioner and four respectable persons of the locality had given statements alleging that the two women were forcibly picked up from a relative's house on 21.08.2026 and taken to the police station; that the petitioner's brother, an ASI in Punjab Police himself, was found detained at the station during the inspection; and that another person alleged he too had been picked up and not allowed to leave.

Notably, the SHO declined to produce CCTV footage at the time of inspection, citing lack of password access and the need for senior officers' permission.

The petitioner later informed the Warrant Officer that the detenues had been dropped off and returned home on 23.08.2026, after allegedly being shifted to a different police post ahead of the Warrant Officer's arrival.

The Court held that while the detenues were not found on-site, the material on record, the petitioner's categorical allegations, the eyewitness statements, the detention of the petitioner's police-officer brother, and the unexplained non-production of CCTV footage, "cannot be brushed aside," and warranted verification through an independent fact-finding inquiry rather than a final finding by the writ court itself.

Since the detenues had already returned home, the immediate object of the habeas corpus petition stood satisfied.

The Court accordingly directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, to conduct a time-bound inquiry (within 15 days) into the alleged illegal detention of all four persons, record statements of all concerned, examine the CCTV footage of both the concerned police station and the premises to which the detenues were allegedly shifted, and recommend registration of an FIR against responsible officials if illegal detention is established.

The SHO was directed to preserve the relevant CCTV footage without deletion or alteration, and the SSP, Fazilka was directed to ensure its preservation and full cooperation with the inquiry.

General Directions on CCTV Access During Habeas Corpus Warrants

Flagging a recurring procedural difficulty highlighted by the Warrant Officer, that CCTV footage could not be accessed at the time of the surprise inspection due to password unavailability and the need for senior-officer permission, the Court held that such delay risked frustrating the very purpose of habeas corpus inspections, given the possibility of footage being overwritten and detenues being shifted before or during inspection.

Invoking the Supreme Court's directions on functional CCTVs in police stations in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021), and the ongoing monitoring in In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations, the Court directed all DGPs to, within one month:

• designate a Nodal Officer in every district/territorial unit, reachable through a dedicated round-the-clock contact mechanism (including WhatsApp/email where feasible), specifically to facilitate CCTV access during execution of habeas corpus warrants;
• ensure SHOs or authorised officials immediately activate this mechanism, or contact the Nodal Officer directly, without requiring the Warrant Officer to await the ordinary chain of departmental permissions, the Court said.

It added that the display the Nodal Officer's contact particulars at every police station and furnish the same to the High Court Registry, with updates as they occur; and treat any deliberate refusal, obstruction or avoidable delay in producing CCTV footage during execution of a habeas corpus warrant as liable to departmental and/or legal action.

The Court clarified that these directions are supplementary to, and do not replace, existing departmental CCTV protocols, and are confined to addressing access during the specific window of a Warrant Officer's habeas corpus inspection.

Case Title: Lal Chand v. State of Punjab and others

Mr. T.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljnder Singh Sra, Additional AG, Punjab.

Click here to read order