Back
Orders '' Implementation Of CCTV Directions
The has directed the state government to enforce the 's landmark directions on CCTV installation in police stations "", holding directly accountable for the working, maintenance, and recording of surveillance equipment.
A of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit issued the order while disposing of a that exposed the stark contrast between justice enabled by functional CCTV footage and the failure caused by non-functional cameras in another case.
A Case Where CCTV Footage Made the Difference
The petition was filed by Ratna Roy, whose son Saikat Saha was allegedly forcibly taken by Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the , and Joy Debnath, a Special Police Officer, to the on the intervening night of . There, he was assaulted, humiliated, and tortured in the presence of police personnel.
Crucially, the entire incident was captured on the police station's CCTV cameras. This footage allowed the High Court to intervene effectively, leading to the constitution of a , suspension and against the erring officers, and termination of the two accused. A has since been filed against them.
“We may point out that this Court was able to intervene effectively in the matter only because there was CCTV footage available on what transpired inside the on the intervening nights of and ,” the Bench observed.
The Flip Side: When Cameras Go Dark
The court’s vigilance was sharpened by another case, , where a similar assault was alleged but no CCTV footage existed. It emerged that the police station’s cameras had been non-functional for three days before and three days after the incident.
This disturbing pattern prompted the court to move beyond the individual case and issue systemic directions to prevent such failures across the state.
Enforcing the ’s Blueprint
Relying on the ’s judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others (), the High Court reiterated that CCTV cameras with night vision and audio recording must be installed at all entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, Inspector and Sub-Inspector rooms, and all other critical areas of every police station.
The court specifically directed:
-
SHO Responsibility: The Officer-in-Charge of each police station shall be personally responsible for the working, maintenance, and recording of CCTVs. Any fault must be immediately reported to the headed by the Divisional Commissioner.
-
Mandatory Reporting: If CCTVs are non-functional, the SHO must inform the DLOC about any arrests or interrogations conducted during that period and forward the record without fail.
-
Swift Repairs: Upon receiving a malfunction report, the DLOC must immediately request the for repair or replacement of equipment.
-
Data Storage: CCTV footage must be preserved for a minimum of 18 months, or at least one year until 18-month storage equipment becomes commercially available.
-
Funding: The court noted the availability of funds under the , referencing a case concerning non-functional CCTVs across the country.
A Warning Against Willful Neglect
The order makes it clear that non-compliance will be treated seriously. By placing the squarely on the SHO, the court aims to eliminate the excuse of ignorance or inaction when cameras go dark.
“If the concerned Officer-in-Charge of P.S. has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of CCTVs of a particular police station, the said Committee shall immediately request the for repair and purchase of the equipment, which shall be done immediately,” the judgment states.
Decision and Implications
The High Court disposed of the but kept the monitoring window open by reiterating its earlier orders. The practical effect is a binding framework for every police station in Tripura, requiring proactive maintenance and accountability.
For victims of , this judgment reinforces that CCTV footage is not merely a record but a lifeline for justice. The has now ensured that the state's police stations cannot afford to let that lifeline go dark.
