Back
Can Police Station CCTVs Be Non-Functional? Orders Audit, Government Forms Committee
In a significant move to ensure accountability within the state's law enforcement infrastructure, the has directed a comprehensive audit of CCTV systems and backup power arrangements across all police stations. The directive came after the court expressed deep concern over the failure of electronic surveillance systems in critical facilities, particularly the , where an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) had remained non-functional for nearly 18 months. Following the court's stern observations, the has constituted a high-level committee to oversee implementation, signaling a judicial push for systemic reform in police station monitoring.
Background: A Petition Born from Allegations of Illegal Detention
The case originated from a petition filed by lawyer , who appeared as a , alleging illegal detention and torture at the on . Seeking CCTV footage to substantiate her claims, Shailaja's plea exposed a glaring lacuna in the state's surveillance framework. When the police authorities were asked to produce the footage, they cited a non-functional UPS as the reason for the cameras' failure during power outages—an explanation that did not sit well with the bench.
The court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, noted that the installation of CCTV cameras, originally mandated by the
of India to prevent
and ensure transparency, could not be treated as a mere formality.
"Installation of CCTV cameras pursuant to
directions could not be treated as a mere formality without ensuring adequate power backup,"
the court observed, emphasizing that the purpose of such surveillance is fundamentally defeated if the system fails during the most critical moments—when power is lost.
The Court's Strong Directive: A Statewide Audit
On , the High Court pulled up police authorities for their casual approach to maintaining electronic infrastructure. The court specifically questioned the Whitefield Police's explanation that the UPS had remained non-functional for nearly one-and-a-half years, calling it a "startling contradiction" when compared to the state's own reports on CCTV and UPS installations. The court directed the Principal Secretary of the to conduct a thorough audit and verification of:
- The number of cameras installed at each police station,
- The availability and functionality of backup systems and recorders,
- UPS capacity and duration of available backup,
- The nature of power failures in different areas to determine the required backup.
The court further stressed that CCTV systems must function and record round the clock, with footage preserved for at least three months. This directive effectively mandates a continuous surveillance ecosystem that cannot be circumvented by infrastructure failures.
Government's Response: Formation of Expert Committee
In compliance with the court's directions, the , through the Director General and Inspector General of Police, constituted a committee headed by Labhu Ram, IPS, Inspector General of Police, . The committee comprises seven other members, including specialists from the , the , and the . This multidisciplinary composition reflects the court's expectation that the audit be both technically rigorous and administratively feasible.
On , Labhu Ram appeared via video conference before Justice Suraj Govindaraj and submitted that the committee would examine and formalize the specific issues flagged by the court and submit a proposal within four weeks. The court accepted this timeline, underscoring the urgency of the matter.
Legal Implications: Article 21 and the Right to a Safe Custody
This case is not merely about broken UPS systems; it strikes at the heart of the under —the . The has repeatedly held that the state has a duty to protect individuals in custody from torture, and that CCTV surveillance is a critical tool for deterrence and evidence. In landmark judgments such as Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), the apex court directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations to prevent .
By ordering a statewide audit, the is reinforcing that this constitutional mandate cannot be diluted by administrative apathy. The court's insistence on round-the-clock recording and backup power ensures that the surveillance system serves its intended purpose—to act as an impartial witness to events within police stations, thereby safeguarding the rights of both detainees and officers.
Impact on Legal Practice and Police Accountability
For legal professionals, this development signals a growing judicial willingness to enforce procedural safeguards through . The formation of a committee with technical experts from premier institutes like IISc and IIIT-Bangalore sets a precedent for involving independent experts in government compliance mechanisms. Lawyers representing victims of may now have a stronger evidentiary basis to demand CCTV footage, knowing that the court has mandated functional systems.
Moreover, the audit's focus on UPS capacity and power failure patterns acknowledges the practical challenges faced by police stations, especially in areas with erratic electricity supply. By requiring a data-driven assessment, the court has moved beyond a one-size-fits-all approach, potentially leading to customized backup solutions.
The state's swift formation of the committee also reflects a broader trend of courts using their to catalyze administrative reforms. This case could become a model for other high courts dealing with similar issues of police station infrastructure.
Conclusion: A Step Towards Transparent Policing
The 's intervention in the matter of is a timely reminder that technology, when properly implemented, can be a powerful ally in the pursuit of justice. By ordering a comprehensive audit and compelling the government to set up an expert committee, the court has laid the groundwork for a more accountable and transparent policing system. The legal community will be watching closely as the committee submits its proposal, hoping that this leads to a permanent fix—one that ensures no police station ever again claims a dead UPS as an excuse for missing evidence.
