AG Assures Supreme Court: Functional CCTV Cameras in All Police Stations to Be Ensured Within Two Weeks

The Supreme Court of India is actively monitoring the installation and functioning of CCTV cameras across police stations in the country through a suo motu proceeding registered as SMW(C) No. 7/2025 (In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations).

The matter is being heard by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. During the most recent hearing, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani appeared on behalf of the Union Home Secretary and gave a firm assurance to the Court that all outstanding issues related to CCTV installation and monitoring would be addressed within two weeks. The AG further committed to holding regular meetings with the Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, the Union Home Secretary, and other concerned officers to resolve the matter effectively. The case touches directly upon the fundamental rights of persons in police custody, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The background and progression of this matter can be understood through the following sequence of events: Origin of the Suo Motu Case: On September 4, 2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue based on a report published by Dainik Bhaskar, which stated that approximately 11 people had died in police custody over the preceding seven to eight months. The Court found the situation alarming enough to register it as a public interest matter. Earlier Direction in Paramvir Singh Saini: This was not the first time the Court had addressed CCTV installation in police stations. In December 2020, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, the Supreme Court had already directed all State and Union Territory Governments to ensure CCTV cameras were installed in every police station under their jurisdiction. However, compliance with that direction remained poor, with many cameras either never installed or lying non-functional. Subsequent Orders in the Suo Motu Case: On September 15, 2025, the Court expressed concern that even installed cameras could be switched off by officials and indicated that it was considering a system of independent monitoring without any human intervention. On September 26, 2025, the Court issued 12 specific queries to the State of Rajasthan, covering issues such as regular audits, preservation of footage, surprise inspections, and forensic validation to prevent tampering. On October 14, 2025, the Court questioned the Rajasthan government about the absence of CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms and called for camera feeds to be linked to a centralized agency so that any camera failure could be detected and addressed immediately. Status of Compliance Across States: The Amicus Curiae informed the Court that Kerala, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh had already set up dashboard systems for live monitoring, while other states, including Uttar Pradesh, were still in the process of doing so. Kerala's system was highlighted as the most comprehensive and effective. Hearing of April 6 and 7, 2026: The Court had directed the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary to assist in issuing effective directions for monitoring CCTV installations across all states. The AG appeared on instructions and gave assurances for further action. The Court also expressed displeasure over the Union being represented by an Under Secretary in earlier committee meetings, questioning whether that was appropriate given the gravity of the matter. (c) Legal Issues The following key legal questions arise in this matter: Whether the State is fulfilling its obligation under the 2020 Supreme Court directions in Paramvir Singh Saini to ensure functional CCTV cameras in every police station? Whether the absence of live monitoring creates conditions that facilitate custodial violence and deaths, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution? Whether a uniform national framework, such as the Kerala model, should be mandated for all states instead of allowing each state to develop its own independent software? Whether independent, tamper-proof, and centralized monitoring of CCTV feeds is necessary to ensure accountability and prevent misuse by police officials? (d) Court's Observations The bench made several pointed observations during the course of hearings: On Adopting the Kerala Model: The Court expressed strong appreciation for Kerala's CCTV dashboard system and questioned why it could not simply be replicated across all states. Justice Vikram Nath observed: "Yesterday, it came out that Kerala has come out with a very nice software and implemented it fully. So we were requesting the ASG why can't you follow in all states instead of all states creating their own? According to Amicus, Kerala, MP and Rajasthan have already implemented and Kerala has the best (software)." The Court saw no reason for duplication of effort when a tested and appreciated system was already available for adoption. On the Union's Level of Representation in Committee Meetings: Justice Nath expressed clear dissatisfaction with the Union being represented by an Under Secretary in committee meetings called by the Supreme Court. He remarked: "[You must know] who to send for the meeting when the Supreme Court has constituted a Committee, appointed Amicus and has directed him to hold meetings with all States/UT... Under Secretary representing Union, does it look nice?" This observation reflected the Court's view that the Union must treat Supreme Court-directed proceedings with the seriousness they deserve, and that appropriate senior officers must participate. On Independent Monitoring: In earlier hearings, the Court had emphasized that CCTV camera feeds must be routed to a centralized agency, much like road cameras are connected to command centres in Rajasthan. This would ensure that any camera going offline is immediately flagged and remedial steps are taken without delay. AG's Assurance: The AG apologized for his absence at earlier hearings and clarified that representation by the Under Secretary was not intended to undermine the importance of the proceedings. He assured the Court that a meeting would be held within a week. The Court's order recorded: "Pursuant to our orders, Home Secretary is present, represented by ld. AG. Upon instructions, ld. AG has stated that within 2 weeks, he will make sure all issues are sorted out by holding regular meetings with Amicus, Home Secretary..." (e) Judgment The matter is currently ongoing and has not yet reached a final decision. However, based on the most recent hearing, the Court has: Accepted the AG's assurance that all pending issues regarding CCTV installation and monitoring will be resolved within two weeks. Directed the AG to hold meetings with the Amicus Curiae, the Union Home Secretary, and all concerned officers. Continued to press for the adoption of the Kerala model of live CCTV monitoring by all states and Union Territories. Put on record its dissatisfaction with inadequate official representation in earlier meetings. The matter remains sub judice, and further directions are expected at the next hearing. Case Details: SMW(C) No. 7/2025: In Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations SLP (Crl) No. 3543/2020: Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (and connected cases) Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave (f) Legal Significance This ongoing proceeding holds substantial importance across several dimensions of law and governance. 1. Custodial Rights and Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 does not pause at the gates of a police station. Functional CCTV monitoring is a concrete safeguard against custodial torture and deaths. This case reinforces the Court's commitment to making that protection real and enforceable. 2. Accountability in Law Enforcement: The insistence on centralized and tamper-proof monitoring reflects a broader principle that accountability in policing cannot rely on self-regulation. External oversight mechanisms are essential, and the judiciary is actively pushing for their creation. 3. Enforcement of Earlier Directions: The case demonstrates the Supreme Court's willingness to revisit and enforce its own directions when compliance has been inadequate. The 2020 order in Paramvir Singh Saini had not been followed in letter or spirit, prompting the Court to take suo motu action. 4. The Kerala Model as a National Standard: The Court's repeated emphasis on the Kerala model is significant. It signals a preference for a tested, uniform national framework over fragmented state-level efforts. This approach could set a precedent for how courts direct technology-driven compliance in future cases. 5. Relevance for Judiciary Exams: For judiciary aspirants, this case is important under the following topics: Suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Custodial deaths and protection under Article 21 Enforcement of earlier Supreme Court directions Role of Amicus Curiae in PIL and suo motu proceedings Accountability of the executive before the judiciary This case serves as a strong example of the Supreme Court acting as a guardian of fundamental rights by ensuring that constitutional guarantees translate into actual, ground-level protection for the most vulnerable persons in the criminal justice system.