Standardisation across jurisdictions: The fact that across States/UTs the situation remains patchy indicates lack of uniform protocols — on installation standards, footage retention, audit mechanisms, tamper-proofing, surprise inspections. The Court’s queries point towards a need for national norms and perhaps central oversight for such infrastructural safeguards.

Critical Observations and Challenges

Resource constraints and infrastructure: In many States/UTs, police stations — especially in remote or rural areas — might lack stable power supply, internet connectivity (for live-streaming), or dedicated monitoring staff. This may account for delays in compliance.
Privacy vs Surveillance: While CCTV installation enhances transparency and deterrence of misconduct, it raises questions about privacy of persons in police custody, visitors, and staff. Protocols need to balance oversight with individual rights.
Maintenance and monitoring: The Court’s focus on “regular audits”, “surprise inspections”, “forensic validation of tamper-proofing” are vital. Infrastructure is only as good as its maintenance culture and monitoring chain. Without periodic checks, cameras may remain “dummy” devices.
Footage retention and access: The question of how long footage is preserved — until final disposal of case, or for a fixed period — is key. Without clear retention policy and access rights (to detainees/accused), installation may lack substantive utility.
Independent monitoring: The Court’s idea of monitoring without human intervention may hint at automated alerts, centralised dashboards, tamper alarms. Implementing such systems would involve investments, training, cybersecurity safeguards and perhaps third-party audits.
Central agencies oversight: The fact that the Union of India has not filed a compliance affidavit with respect to central investigating agencies (e.g., NIA) raises questions about the scope of oversight—whether the earlier directive covered only State/UT police stations or also central agency stations—and the accountability frameworks therein.

What Lies Ahead

The next hearing on 16 December 2025 is likely to be a litmus test of the States/UTs’ seriousness. Defaulting jurisdictions may face directions for personal appearance of senior officers, imposition of costs, or more stringent oversight mechanisms by the Court.
The Court may further frame detailed monitoring guidelines, possibly directing a national template for CCTV installation in police stations: number of cameras, recording quality, live-streaming access, retention periods, remote monitoring by an independent agency, audit schedule.
The possibility of a nodal monitoring cell, under either the Centre or apex court’s mandate, could emerge — to oversee uniform implementation across States/UTs, conduct periodic reporting, and identify laggards.
Given the fundamental rights dimension (Articles 20-22, 21 of the Constitution of India), the Court may link effective CCTV surveillance in police stations with the broader right to life, dignified custody, access to justice and fair investigation.
States/UTs may be required to file not only affidavits of compliance but audit reports demonstrating functional status, tamper logs, surprise inspection reports, footage-review metrics, and steps taken to remedy defects.

Concluding Thoughts

By issuing this final deadline and reserving the personal appearance of senior officers in the event of non-compliance, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: installation of surveillance infrastructure in police stations is not merely a tick-box exercise but a critical element of the criminal justice ecosystem, with tangible implications for custodial rights, police accountability and public trust.

For stakeholders — from State governments to police forces to civil society — the message is unmistakable: the clock is ticking. Infrastructure must translate into functioning systems, transparency mechanisms, continuous monitoring, and real-time accountability. The Court’s robust approach underscores the importance of structural safeguards inside the most sensitive loci of state power: the police station.

States/UTs must now move beyond the rhetoric of compliance to embed CCTV systems within an ecosystem of oversight, audit and institutional culture of accountability. In a democracy that emphasises the rule of law, policing transparency cannot remain aspirational — it must become operational and enforceable.

Unless this transformation is effected — within the stipulated timeframe — the Court’s invocation of senior executive accountability may be only the first step in a deeper institutional push. The challenge now lies in turning judicial directions into living realities on the ground.

Author’s Note: The above article draws upon the reported Supreme Court order of 25 November 2025. We await the December listing and hope for the lodgement of affidavits and implementation reports from all States and Union Territories.