Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan Over Missing CCTVs in Interrogation Rooms, Eyes Centralized Oversight

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has sharply questioned the Rajasthan government over a glaring omission in its compliance with judicial directives: the absence of CCTV cameras in police interrogation rooms. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing a suo motu case on custodial deaths, underscored that the failure to monitor interrogation spaces fundamentally undermines human rights and defeats the purpose of court-mandated surveillance in police stations.

The Court's pointed observations came during the hearing of IN RE LACK OF FUNCTIONAL CCTVS IN POLICE STATIONS , a matter it initiated after a media report detailed 11 deaths in police custody in Rajasthan within the first eight months of the year. The bench is also monitoring the nationwide implementation of its landmark 2020 judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh , which mandated comprehensive CCTV coverage in all police stations and central investigative agency offices.

The Crux of the Matter: "The Main Place Where a Camera Has to Be"

During the proceedings, the bench took critical note of an affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan, with Justice Sandeep Mehta highlighting a particularly "interesting feature."

"There is no camera in the interrogation room. Any of the police stations... which is the main place where camera has to be there. What you're doing in the interrogation room is the most relevant!" Justice Mehta remarked, directly challenging the state's compliance efforts.

The observation cuts to the heart of the issue of custodial violence and forced confessions. The bench emphasized that while installing such infrastructure entails a monetary burden, it is non-negotiable as "it is a question of human rights." The Court's stance reaffirms that financial constraints cannot be cited as a reason to compromise the fundamental rights and physical integrity of individuals in custody.

The suo motu case was registered on September 4, based on a Dainik Bhaskar report on custodial deaths. Since then, the Court has systematically tightened its scrutiny, previously posing 12 specific queries to Rajasthan on September 26. These questions covered the number and placement of cameras, audit mechanisms, data preservation periods, and provisions for surprise inspections and forensic validation to prevent tampering.

A Systemic Failure: Non-Compliance with Paramvir Singh Saini

The current proceedings have once again brought the widespread non-compliance with the Paramvir Singh Saini judgment into sharp focus. In that seminal 2020 ruling, the Supreme Court had laid down exhaustive guidelines for CCTV installation, specifying that cameras with audio and night-vision capabilities must cover all entry/exit points, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, and reception areas, ensuring no part of a police station is left unmonitored, except for washrooms.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appointed as Amicus Curiae in the Paramvir Singh Saini matter, informed the bench that the problem is not limited to Rajasthan. He presented an updated report indicating that the Union government, 16 states, and 3 Union Territories are yet to fully comply with the Court's directions. This systemic lapse highlights a significant challenge in translating judicial orders into on-ground administrative action, leaving a critical gap in police accountability.

The Search for a Robust Oversight Mechanism

The bench expressed profound dissatisfaction with the existing oversight framework, which, as per Rajasthan's affidavit, appeared to rest with the Station House Officer (SHO). Justice Mehta questioned the efficacy of such a self-regulatory model.

"What is the mechanism for oversight? SHO takes care of the oversight, as per your affidavit?" he posed to the state's counsel. "Why can't the feed be provided to a particular dashboard which has a monitoring mechanism?"

The Court is actively considering a paradigm shift from localized, police-controlled monitoring to a centralized, independent, and technology-driven system. Justice Mehta drew parallels with large-scale, tech-enabled public services, citing the taxation system managed by Infosys and passport services by Tata Consultancy Services.

"Why can't such an agency be involved to ensure that the entire feed... all should be collated in a single server so that there is possibility of retrieval if required?" he opined.

This line of reasoning aligns with the Court's earlier observations on September 15, where it floated the idea of a control room "without any human intervention" to monitor CCTV feeds. The goal is to create a tamper-proof system where any camera malfunction or deactivation immediately triggers an alert to a central authority, enabling swift remedial action and preventing officials from selectively switching off surveillance.

Legal and Practical Implications

The Supreme Court's assertive stance has significant implications for criminal jurisprudence, police reform, and the protection of constitutional rights under Article 21.

• Strengthening Accused Rights: For defense lawyers, the lack of functional CCTV footage, especially from interrogation rooms, can become a powerful ground to challenge the voluntariness of confessions and the narrative of the prosecution regarding the circumstances of an arrest and investigation.
• Pressure on State Governments: The Court has put all non-compliant states and Union Territories on notice. The assurance from the bench that it "will ensure compliance with the directions in due time" signals that state governments can expect intensified judicial scrutiny and may face contempt proceedings for continued inaction.
• A New Model for Police Accountability: The push for a centralized, possibly outsourced, oversight mechanism could revolutionize police accountability in India. Such a system would reduce the ability of local police officials to manipulate or destroy evidence, thereby creating a more transparent and rights-respecting custodial environment.
• Evidence and Admissibility: The availability of untampered audio-video recordings from police stations would have a profound impact on trial proceedings. It would serve as crucial evidence to corroborate or contradict claims of custodial torture, illegal detention, and procedural lapses, enhancing the quality of justice.

The bench has directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a concrete proposal for an effective oversight mechanism and respond to the Court's observations. It has also asked the Union and other states to file their responses to the Amicus Curiae's report. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 24, a date that will be closely watched by legal professionals and human rights advocates across the country.