Site icon SCC Times

SC directs all States & UTs to install CCTV Cameras in all Police Station. Read how CCTV Cameras will help curb custodial violence

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, KM Joseph and Anirudhha Bose, JJ has directed all the States and UTs to install CCTV cameras in all Police Stations and file compliance affidavits within 6 weeks.

The Court said that the directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.

In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801[1]the Court had directed that a Central Oversight Body be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation.

Earlier, 14 States and 2 UTs had filed compliance affidavits but the Court noticed that the majority of the Compliance Affidavits and Action Taken Reports failed to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras qua each Police Station. It hence, directed that the Compliance Affidavit is to be done by ALL the States and Union Territories, including those who have filed ‘so-called’ compliance affidavits.

The directions issued by the Court include:

a) Purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and its equipment;

b) Obtaining the budgetary allocation for the same;

c) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;

d) Carrying out inspections and addressing the grievances received 6 from the DLOC; and

e) To call for monthly reports from the DLOC and immediately address any concerns like faulty equipment.

a) Supervision, maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;

b) Continuous monitoring of maintenance and upkeep of CCTVs and its equipment;

c) To interact with the Station House Officer (SHO) as to the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs and its equipment; and

d) To send monthly reports to the SLOC about the functioning of CCTVs and allied equipment.

e) To review footage stored from CCTVs in the various Police Stations to check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported.

“It is obvious that none of this can be done without allocation of adequate funds for the same, which must be done by the States’/Union Territories’ Finance Departments at the very earliest.”

“If the concerned SHO has reported malfunctioning or non-functioning of CCTVs of a particular Police Station, the DLOC shall immediately request the SLOC for repair and purchase of the equipment, which shall be done immediately.”

Directions to Union of India

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

(ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA)

(iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED)

(iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

(v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)

(vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)

(vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.

“As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station.”

How will installation of CCTV Cameras curb custodial violence? 

“it shall be clearly mentioned therein that a person has a right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court or the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence.”

What is to be done if force used at Police Stations?

Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same.

[Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 983,  decided on 02.12.2020]


*Justice RF Nariman had penned this judgment. Read more about him here.

Counsels heard:

Amicus Curiae Siddhartha Dave

Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal,

Addl. Solicitor General of India Madhvi Divan,

Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan for the intervenor

[1] In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801, it was directed

Exit mobile version