Background and Chronology
The Court’s order arises from the suo motu proceedings titled In Re Lack Of Functional CCTVs In Police Stations(SMW(C) No. 7/2025) which were launched on 4 September 2025. Live Law
This followed a media report by Dainik Bhaskar suggesting that approximately 11 persons had died in police custody in a span of seven to eight months during the year, thereby raising serious concerns about accountability, oversight and the sufficiency of safeguards in police stations. Live Law
Earlier, in the landmark judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), the Court had directed all States and UTs to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station under their jurisdiction. Live LawHowever, as the instant order makes clear, mere installation has not translated into effective operationalisation — with many cameras either not installed at all, switched off, or not subject to audit/monitoring. Live Law
On 15 September 2025, the Court raised the possibility of independent monitoring of CCTV systems without human intervention — recognising the risk that even installed cameras might be circumvented or deactivated by staff. Live LawSubsequently, on 26 September 2025, the Court framed 12 pointed queries for the State of Rajasthan, concerning audits, surprise inspections, tamper-proofing, retention periods of footage, and whether forensic validation measures exist. Live Law
Key Direction of the Present Order
- The Court grants three weeks to the remaining States and UTs which have not yet filed their compliance affidavits to do so. Live Law
- The next date of listing is 16 December 2025. The Court orders that if by that date a State/UT has not filed the affidavit, then:
“the Principal Secretary and Director of respective state agencies shall remain present before this Court along with their explanations for not complying with the previous orders and today’s orders.” Live Law
- The Union of India (particularly in respect of Central Investigating Agencies such as the National Investigation Agency) has not yet filed its compliance affidavit. Live Law
Significance and Implications
Custodial accountability and human rights dimension: The direction underscores the Court’s recognition that police stations are sites of significant custodial risk and human rights vulnerabilities. CCTV coverage serves as a vital safeguard — both as a deterrent against misconduct and as evidentiary apparatus in investigations of custodial deaths or torture-allegations.
Operational vs. formal compliance: The Court’s lament that “many cameras either not installed or lying defunct” illustrates the gap between formal compliance (installation order) and functional compliance (continuous monitoring, maintenance, validation). The suggestion of independent monitoring signals judicial impatience with superficial compliance.
Federal executive accountability: By directing the appearance of Chief Secretaries or Principal Secretaries in case of default, the Court has elevated the issue from police-station level to the highest executive offices in the States/UTs. This demonstrates the institutional gravity of the matter and the Court’s demand for systemic responsiveness.
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.