Is Video Recording Mandatory in BNSS Police Probes?

In an era where technology plays a pivotal role in ensuring justice, questions about police procedures during crime investigations are more relevant than ever. A common query arises: During crime investigation by police, is it mandatory to make video recording of every proceeding under BNSS? (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the successor to CrPC). This blog post dives deep into the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical implications to provide clarity. While video recordings enhance transparency and evidence integrity, are they a strict requirement? Let's explore.

Disclaimer: This article offers general information based on legal provisions and judgments. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.

Understanding BNSS and Investigation Procedures

The BNSS modernizes criminal procedure in India, emphasizing technology for fair investigations. However, it does not impose a blanket mandate for video recording every proceeding. Instead, it promotes audio-video means where practicable, particularly for key steps like searches, witness statements, and recoveries.

For instance, Section 161(3) (corresponding to CrPC) allows recording witness statements by audio-video electronic means but does not make it compulsory for all cases. It's encouraged to boost credibility and avoid disputes on accuracy In Reference VS Ravi - Madhya Pradesh. Similarly, Section 54-A highlights videography for crime scenes and recoveries as beneficial, though not strictly mandatory Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Supreme Court.

Other BNSS provisions reinforce this approach:- Searches under Section 105: ...the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone... if practicable Mohammed Gouse, S/o. Abdul Lateef vs State Of Karnataka, Through Gangavathi Town Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 192 - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 192.- Sections 105 and 181: Police are encouraged to record searches and interrogations via audio-video, preferably mobile phones, to ensure transparency Veeresh S/o. Narayanappa shilaveri vs State Of Karnataka - KarnatakaSuresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - KeralaP.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh.

These indicate a shift towards tech-enabled probes but with flexibility for practical constraints.

Judicial Interpretations: Not Absolute, But Essential

Indian courts have consistently underscored videography's value without deeming its absence fatal to investigations. The Supreme Court recognizes its role in transparency and accountability, yet notes that lacking recordings doesn't automatically invalidate probes D. Venkatasubramniam VS M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari - Supreme CourtShafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Supreme Court.

In narcotics cases, courts have mandated recordings for recovery procedures absent compelling reasons In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - Calcutta. For Sections 82/83 proceedings (proclamation and attachment), Mandatory photography and video recording... and attachment of the video file with the prosecution material is advised for confidence in reports Sunil Tyagi VS Govt of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 831 - 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 831.

Courts distinguish police investigations from judicial proceedings. Video is more critical for Section 164 statements (judicial), but for initial police work, it's best effort. Absence due to constraints doesn't vitiate proceedings P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra PradeshHema Suresh Ahuja VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay. BNSS Sections 105, 181, and 185 promote recordings but acknowledge limitations Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - KeralaVipin Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. - Allahabad.

A key perspective: It is, thus, not necessary that in every case... the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime... highlighting investigative discretion Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609 - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 609.

When Is Video Recording Strongly Recommended?

While not universal, videography is a best practice for:- Witness Statements: Especially sensitive cases, under Section 161(3) In Reference VS Ravi - Madhya Pradesh.- Crime Scenes and Recoveries: To prevent disputes Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Supreme Court.- Searches and Interrogations: Preferably mobile video Mohammed Gouse, S/o. Abdul Lateef vs State Of Karnataka, Through Gangavathi Town Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 192 - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 192Veeresh S/o. Narayanappa shilaveri vs State Of Karnataka - Karnataka.- Progress Updates: Victims' rights under Section 193(3) BNSS for investigation updates within 90 days MANJUSHA K. W/O NAVEEN BABU VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 6 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 6.

Inspections often include: During inspection, the photographs and video recording of the inspected area was done... Aseem Kapoor VS State of Nct of Delhi - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1240 - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1240. Courts and guidelines push for CCTV in stations and training PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI VS BALJIT SINGH - Supreme CourtIn Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - CalcuttaKrishnakant Tamrakar VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2018 3 Supreme 295 - 2018 3 Supreme 295.

Challenges and Practical Considerations

Operational hurdles like lack of equipment or remote locations mean recordings are if practicable. BNSS recognizes this, making it desirable over mandatory. For example, summons service or jurisdictional orders don't require video V.D. Moorthy, S/o. N. Vishwanathan vs State Of AP - 2025 Supreme(AP) 530 - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 530Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2025 6 Supreme 227 - 2025 6 Supreme 227.

In bail contexts or investment fraud probes, video supports but isn't decisive Suresh Kumar Pusarla vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12318 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12318Ramesh S/o Ramchandra Havele VS State of Maharashtra - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1379 - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1379. Victims gain from Section 230 BNSS for case details MANJUSHA K. W/O NAVEEN BABU VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 6 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 6.

Best Practices for Law Enforcement and Stakeholders

To align with judicial inclinations:1. Adopt Technology: Install CCTV in stations; use mobiles for on-field recordings PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI VS BALJIT SINGH - Supreme CourtKrishnakant Tamrakar VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2018 3 Supreme 295 - 2018 3 Supreme 295.2. Training: Educate officers on procedures In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - Calcutta.3. Monitoring: Superiors oversee compliance.4. Documentation: Pair videos with diary entries Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - Kerala.

For citizens:- Request recordings where feasible.- Track progress via BNSS victim rights.- Challenge lapses in court if material.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In summary, video recording is not mandatory for every proceeding under BNSS during police investigations. It's strongly encouraged—especially for searches, statements, and recoveries—to foster trust in the justice system. Courts view it as enhancing reliability without making it a legal prerequisite, given practical realities Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Supreme CourtD. Venkatasubramniam VS M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari - Supreme CourtIn Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - CalcuttaIn Reference VS Ravi - Madhya Pradesh.

Key Takeaways:- Not Universal Mandate: Best practice, not compulsory.- Specific Contexts: Required where specified (e.g., certain searches).- Transparency Boost: Adopt voluntarily for stronger cases.- Victim Rights: Stay informed under BNSS Sections 193, 230.

As India advances digitally, expect wider adoption. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts. Stay informed, stay safe.

References

Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Supreme CourtD. Venkatasubramniam VS M. K. Mohan Krishnamachari - Supreme CourtIn Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - CalcuttaIn Reference VS Ravi - Madhya PradeshMohammed Gouse, S/o. Abdul Lateef vs State Of Karnataka, Through Gangavathi Town Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 192 - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 192Veeresh S/o. Narayanappa shilaveri vs State Of Karnataka - KarnatakaSuresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - KeralaP.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra PradeshSunil Tyagi VS Govt of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 831 - 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 831V.D. Moorthy, S/o. N. Vishwanathan vs State Of AP - 2025 Supreme(AP) 530 - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 530Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2025 6 Supreme 227 - 2025 6 Supreme 227Manjula Daughter of Late Rati Kanta Sarma vs State of Assam Represented by The Commissioner and Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 609 - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 609Suresh Kumar Pusarla vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12318 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12318MANJUSHA K. W/O NAVEEN BABU VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 6 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 6Aseem Kapoor VS State of Nct of Delhi - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1240 - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1240Krishnakant Tamrakar VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2018 3 Supreme 295 - 2018 3 Supreme 295Hema Suresh Ahuja VS State of Maharashtra - BombayVipin Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. - Allahabad