Back
Directs Centre to Utilise Existing ASUMP Funds for Police CCTV Infrastructure
The on Thursday directed the Union Government to ensure that funds already available under the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernisation of Police (ASUMP) scheme are utilised to address shortfalls in CCTV infrastructure in police stations, instead of allowing the funds to remain unused while the Centre works on a new police modernisation scheme. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the case concerning the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country.
The Court’s observation came after Senior Advocate highlighted that the ASUMP scheme is set to expire on , while the (MHA) has begun seeking administrative and financial approval for a new comprehensive umbrella scheme called the Police Modernisation Mission (PMM). Dave submitted that there should be continuity between the two schemes to prevent a funding gap for CCTV infrastructure.
The Funding Dilemma: Existing vs. Future Schemes
According to the Union’s affidavit, the umbrella scheme of Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF) has been extended by one year beyond FY 2025-26, up to . The ASUMP sub-scheme will continue under the MPF umbrella during FY 2026-27 to discharge committed liabilities and enable financial assistance to States and Union Territories. However, the proposed PMM, with an outlay of ₹24,000 crore over five years, is still at an initial stage, and component-specific details, including provisions for CCTV cameras, are not yet available.
Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned whether the funds under the existing scheme could be re-approved for the requirements identified by the States. He observed, “If you have any hitch in working, we will give you a push on the next day. You come out with a simple affidavit that the funds whichever they are that is exactly falling short, you utilise those funds from the balance funds in the ASUMP. Otherwise, the scheme is coming to an end. Your funds will go elsewhere.”
Additional Solicitor General , representing the Union, submitted that while it is not feasible to provide component-specific details at this stage, the new scheme would have adequate provisions for CCTV cameras in police stations. The Court, however, pressed the point that funds are already available under ASUMP and should not be allowed to go dormant. Justice Mehta stated, “For the present, you are already having funds in the ASUMP scheme. Why do you allow them to go dormant? Let them be used for modernising the existing system. We have to wait till your new scheme comes into force.”
The Court directed the ASG to obtain further instructions within two weeks and listed the case for further hearing.
Jharkhand’s Stalled CCTV Proposal
During the hearing, Dave highlighted that the State of Jharkhand had submitted a proposal for a centralized dashboard and monitoring system for CCTV cameras in all police stations, amounting to approximately ₹112.50 crore, but the proposal was rejected by the Centre for not conforming to (BPR&D) standards. The Union’s affidavit states that Jharkhand was asked to furnish requisite information and complete the appraisal in accordance with the ASUMP scheme, but the state had not provided the specific details sought by the Centre on .
Justice Vikram Nath asked the ASG to specifically indicate the position regarding Jharkhand and the objections raised by the Amicus. Dave informed the Court that Jharkhand has not had “one CCTV since ,” underscoring the continuing concern regarding the state’s CCTV infrastructure. The Court said the matter could be addressed when the ASG returns with further instructions.
Data on CCTV Proposals and Fund Utilisation
The Union’s affidavit provides a detailed breakdown of CCTV-related proposals and funding under ASUMP. As of , ₹450 crore was available for all States and UTs, against which utilisation stood at ₹225 crore. Funds are released through the Single Nodal Agency-SPARSH portal based on actual expenditure and after procurement is completed and bills are available.
The total CCTV-related proposals submitted by States and UTs under ASUMP amounted to ₹1,453.85 crore. Of this, ₹484.03 crore had been approved, ₹155.57 crore was under consideration, and ₹814.25 crore was not considered, restricted, deferred, or otherwise not approved. The affidavit attributes ₹512.75 crore worth of proposals not being considered to issues including poor performance against previous approvals, absence of a roadmap to complete the projects, and non-compliance with BPR&D requirements. Additionally, ₹301.5 crore in savings arose from sanctions made according to BPR&D norms and exclusion of components such as recurring charges that are not admissible under the scheme.
State-wise, Assam’s ₹9.18 crore CCTV proposal has been approved, while a revised proposal from Nagaland in accordance with BPR&D norms is awaited. Karnataka’s ₹278 crore proposal was reduced to ₹173 crore because recurring costs and network connectivity charges were ineligible. Nagaland’s ₹85.35 crore proposal was deferred because its project cost was too high and its proposed centralised architecture violated guidelines. Notably, several States—Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Odisha—had no police station CCTV proposal under ASUMP, while proposals from Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and Uttarakhand remain under consideration.
Legal and Practical Implications
The ’s insistence on utilising existing ASUMP funds reflects a pragmatic approach to ensuring that police station CCTV infrastructure is not left in limbo during the transition to a new scheme. The Court’s observations also serve as a warning to the Centre not to let funds go unutilised while states face critical gaps in surveillance capabilities.
For legal professionals, this case underscores the judiciary’s proactive role in overseeing the implementation of government schemes, particularly those affecting criminal justice administration. The lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations has been a recurring issue, impacting evidence collection, accountability, and the rights of accused persons. The Court’s direction could accelerate the installation and maintenance of CCTV systems, thereby strengthening procedural safeguards in police custody.
Moreover, the data on proposal rejections and delays highlights the need for stricter compliance with BPR&D standards by states. The Centre’s new PMM scheme, with its substantial outlay, offers an opportunity to streamline funding and ensure uniformity across jurisdictions. However, as the Court noted, the immediate priority should be to bridge the gap using existing resources.
Looking Ahead
The next hearing, scheduled after two weeks, will see the ASG present further instructions on utilising ASUMP funds and addressing Jharkhand’s specific issues. The Court’s “push” to the Centre may result in a swift reallocation of dormant funds, providing much-needed relief to states that have been waiting for financial support. The case continues to highlight the critical intersection of technology, policing, and judicial oversight, with implications for the broader goal of police modernisation in India.
