FACTS
The case arose by way of a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020 filed by Paramvir Singh Saini.
The petitioner raised issues regarding the installation and status of CCTV cameras in police stations across States and Union Territories, and the need for audio-video recording of statements under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure1.
The Supreme Court had earlier in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh2 given directions concerning videography of statements, etc. The petitioner sought to examine compliance with those directions and to expand on them.
The Court issued notices to all States and Union Territories to provide details affidavits and action taken reports about the number of police stations, which ones have CCTV, their working condition, whether they record, their positioning, whether they have audio, etc.
States and UTs filed compliance affidavits and reports. However, many were deficient: details missing about how many stations, how many cameras, where they are installed, whether they are working, whether they record, storage capacity, maintenance etc.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether there is adequate compliance by States and Union Territories with earlier Supreme Court orders such as Shafhi Mohammad concerning video recording of statements, use of CCTV, etc.
- Whether installation of CCTV cameras in police stations across all States and UTs is necessary; if so, what are the standards guidelines such as locations, audio, night vision, etc. to ensure that no part of a police station remains uncovered.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sec 161(3)
- Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801.
- Whether the proviso to Section 161(3), CrPC ,which provides for audio-video recording of statements under some conditions needs to be more strictly enforced and clarified.
- What oversight mechanisms should be in place to monitor compliance: for instance, oversight committees at State , district levels, responsibility of Station House Officer (SHO), reporting obligations, etc.
- What should be the minimum standards of data storage and preservation of recorded material and CCTV footage.
CONTENTION
Petitioner :
That many States and UTs are not complying with earlier Supreme Court directions re: video and audio recording, CCTV installation. That in many police stations, CCTV cameras either are not installed, or installed but non-functional, or do not record audio, or the coverage is partial, or there is no clarity about storage and preservation. That Section 161(3) CrPC proviso demands better enforcement and clarity.
States / Union Territories (Respondents):
Some States claimed compliance or partial compliance; others stated that due to resource constraints, or lack of funds or infrastructure, some police stations lack sufficient CCTV coverage; or that some cameras are non-functional. Some raised issues of logistics: power supply, internet connectivity, cost of acquiring equipment, maintenance, etc.
Supreme Court through its judgment:
The Court accepted that there is widespread non-compliance and deficient compliance.
It held that more stringent directions are needed, so that all police stations or offices where interrogation or arrests etc are made must have CCTV cameras, with specific standards, with audio and video, night vision, etc.
Oversight committees at State Level (SLOC) and District Level (DLOC) should be constituted; SHOs should be made responsible for working, maintenance, backup, reporting; storage periods should be stipulated; States/UTs must file action plans / timelines.
RATIONALE
What reasoning did the Supreme Court use to arrive at its conclusions and directions? Some points:
Fundamental Rights, especially Article 213: The Court stressed that the installation of CCTV cameras and video/audio recording is part of ensuring a fair process, protection of life and personal liberty, protection against custodial violence or abuse. Without transparency, rights of detainees/arrested persons are at greater risk.
Precedent and past orders: The Court referred to Shafhi Mohammad and other earlier orders which required video recording of statements, etc., and held that States have had enough time to comply; incomplete compliance is unacceptable.
Rule of law and accountability: To ensure that police stations and law enforcement do not become opaque zones where abuses may occur; CCTV is a tool for accountability, deterrence, checking misuse of power.
Need for oversight and uniformity: Different States had varied levels of compliance, many lacking details. To avoid patchy implementation, the Court found it necessary to set uniform minimum standards ,audio + video, night vision, storage period, coverage of all parts of the station. Also oversight committees are necessary so that the directions do not stay only on paper.
Practical viability: The Court considered that in some cases, non-compliance is due to resource constraints lack of funds, connectivity, electricity etc. but held that these cannot be permanent excuses; States need to allocate funds through Finance Departments, ensure infrastructure such as electricity, internet etc.
3.INDIA CONST. art. 21
Preservation and storage: Even if cameras are installed, if footage isn’t preserved for enough time or isn’t accessible, then the purpose is defeated. So preservation period is essential, as is maintenance of hardware, reporting of faults by the SHO, etc.
DEFECTS OF LAW
These are places where the legal regime as existed before or even as directed has weaknesses, or where the decision does not fully resolve problems. They can be seen as gaps, criticisms, or areas for improvement.
No statutory amendment: The directions are judicial in nature; the actual statutes CrPC or others were not amended to mandate universal CCTV and audio-video recording beyond what is already in Section 161(3) proviso. Thus, enforceability ultimately depends on executive and administrative compliance, which may remain variable.
Lack of express enforcement mechanism and penalties: The Court did not prescribe a specific penalty for non-compliance by individual police stations and officials (though it required oversight committees and reporting). Some States may still delay or ignore the directions, and the judgment does not explicitly lay down punitive consequences for such inaction, beyond being in breach of court order.
Resource & infrastructure constraints: While the Court acknowledges issues like power, internet etc., the practical burden on poorer States and remote areas could be substantial. The direction that internet or electricity must be provided “as expeditiously as possible” is not backed by a fixed timeline or fund source, so variance will continue.
Storage period ambiguity: The Court directed that footage must be preserved for “at least 18 months” or, where commercially available equipment allows, for that period; but also said that until such equipment is available, States must use whatever is available, even if less. This allows for lower compliance in less resourced stations under the “equipment not available” excuse.
Overlapping jurisdictions & multiple agencies: The direction applies also to central agencies like CBI anf NIA etc. But in many places, the demarcation of jurisdiction, responsibility and oversight may be unclear e.g. who monitors, funding etc.. Also, whether the oversight committees will have teeth is unclear.
Privacy and data protection concerns: The decision mandates CCTV with audio, night vision, covering many parts including possibly washrooms (outside, not inside) etc. The decision tries to avoid recording inside toilets etc, but ethical and privacy concerns remain about how audio will be used, who can access, misuse etc. The law does not have fully developed data protection regulation in India (as of that date), so safeguards for misuse of recordings may be weak.
Accessibility of justice for aggrieved persons: While the Court provides for the ability to use CCTV footage in investigations and human rights complaints, in practice, many people may not know how to demand preservation of footage, or face procedural or cost obstacles to access. The existence of oversight committees helps, but does not guarantee effective remedy in every case.
INFERENCE
The judgment is a strong progressive step towards ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of the rights of persons in custody or being interrogated. It reinforces that procedural safeguards aren’t optional but are part of fair trial and human dignity.Given that many earlier judgments and orders such as
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra4, , The Court laid down safeguards for women prisoners and directed separation from male prisoners.It stressed humane conditions in custody.
- Basu v. State of W.B5., ., The Court laid down detailed guidelines on arrest, detention, and custodial safeguards.
State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India6, (2003) 8 SCC 546, The Court stressed humane treatment of women and children in custody.
Guidelines were framed to protect rights during detention.
4.(1983) 2 SCC 96
5.(1997) 1 SCC 416
6.(2003) 8 SCC 546
had not been fully implemented, this decision attempts to set minimum standards to ensure uniform implementation across States and UTs. In that way, there is normative clarity.
The responsibilities assigned (to SHOs, oversight committees) if followed in good faith, could reduce incidents of custodial violence, misuse of power, false confessions, coercion, etc., because the presence of CCTV + audio/video recording acts as deterrent and provides evidence.
However, the effectiveness depends heavily on executive will, availability of funds, and local infrastructure (electricity, internet, procurement of good cameras, storage). Without administrative follow-through, directions might remain on paper. Hence enforcement monitoring will be critical.
There is a need perhaps for legislative action and amendments to give statutory backing to these safeguards, so that they are binding with penalties; perhaps including specific obligations in the CrPC7 or Police Acts, so that compliance becomes a legal duty not just a judicial directive.
Privacy safeguards and rules need to be developed more explicitly: who may access recordings, how they may be used, how misuse is punished, who is bound by confidentiality, etc. Possibly rules or guidelines which balance transparency with individual privacy.
7.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
***
Srimathi Venkatesan
The Central Law College,TamilNadu
***