The High Court of Jharkhand has initiated contempt proceedings against Additional Chief Secretary Vandana Dhadel following a persistent failure by the state government to install CCTV cameras in police stations as mandated by previous judicial directives. A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad expressed deep dissatisfaction with the state’s approach, categorizing the repeated delays as a potential systematic attempt to obstruct compliance with court orders.

The controversy centers on the state’s inability to finalize the installation of surveillance equipment across its police infrastructure. While the judiciary has issued multiple instructions to expedite the process, state authorities have repeatedly cited complexities in the tendering process. The bench observed that this cycle—inviting bids, reporting difficulties, cancelling tenders, and promising fresh proposals—has become a standardized approach to avoid implementing the court’s directives.

A Persistent Pattern of Bureaucratic Delay

The court’s scrutiny is deeply rooted in the alarming incidence of custodial deaths within the state. Statistical data provided to the court, covering the period between 2018 and 2026, recorded 427 custodial deaths. The bench expressed profound concern over these figures, emphasizing that in a jurisdiction where such a high number of custodial deaths has been officially admitted, the immediate installation of surveillance systems should have been an absolute administrative priority rather than a point of recurring legal friction.

The Director General of Police (DGP) recently submitted an affidavit attempting to shift the responsibility, claiming that she lacked the independent authority to mandate the installation of cameras. The DGP maintained that such decisions strictly fall under the purview of the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department. The High Court rejected this line of reasoning, describing it as an attempt to abdicate institutional responsibility.

In its critique of the state's conduct, the bench stated, “At least prima facie, through such bureaucratic red tape, the State has, up to now, successfully delayed the implementation of the Court’s orders, if not altogether refusing to comply with them.” The court noted that the state's frequent submission of unqualified apologies had lost all credibility in the face of ongoing inaction.

Accountability Shift and Contempt Proceedings

Finding the explanations regarding internal departmental jurisdiction insufficient, the court issued a notice to Vandana Dhadel, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, to show cause why contempt action should not be initiated against her. The bench highlighted that the repetitive nature of the non-compliance suggested that excuses about inter-departmental hurdles were being used as a shield against judicial mandates.

Addressing the repetitive nature of the state's response, the court remarked, “The usual phrases in each of the affidavits filed by the State authorities, about tendering unqualified and unconditional apologies or that the Officers cannot even think of disobeying any orders passed by the Court, ring quite hollow if all these circumstances are considered.”

The court’s frustration was further compounded by the gravity of the human rights concerns involved. For the judges, the failure to secure police stations with CCTV cameras is not merely an administrative lapse but a failure to safeguard the rights of individuals in custody. The bench emphasized that the urgency of the situation was underscored by the recent history of custodial fatalities.

Directives to the State Administration

The High Court has set firm requirements for the upcoming hearings. The DGP has been granted until October 14, 2026, to file any further affidavit if she chooses to clarify her position further. More significantly, the court has explicitly ordered the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand to assume personal responsibility for the matter. This directive aims to bypass the departmental fragmentation that has thus far hampered progress.

The bench explicitly stated that it would not accept affidavits submitted by third-party entities such as the Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology (JAP-IT) or private contractors. The court expects an affidavit from the Chief Secretary that provides a definitive timeline for the completion of the installation project.

“At least in a State where the official records admit to about 427 custodial deaths during the short period between 2018 and 2026, there should have been no delay in complying with the Court’s orders to install CCTV cameras in all the police stations,” the court asserted during the proceedings.

The court has directed the Registry to serve the notice and all relevant case documents, including previous orders and the petition, personally upon the DGP within ten days. This procedural step ensures that the administration remains fully apprised of the court's stance and the severity of the potential consequences.

As the matter is now listed for hearing on October 15, 2026, the state government faces a critical juncture. The administration is now tasked with providing a concrete, time-bound plan that addresses the court's requirements. Failure to produce a credible, authorized response from the highest levels of the state bureaucracy is likely to lead to further legal repercussions under the Contempt of Courts Act, signaling a shift from procedural leniency to strict judicial oversight in the effort to ensure transparency and accountability within the police force of Jharkhand. The upcoming hearing is expected to clarify whether the state will finally prioritize the installation of surveillance technology as a measure to curb custodial incidents or if the current deadlock will persist, inviting further action from the judiciary.