CCTV Cameras Go ‘Missing’ When Courts Seek Footage? Allahabad High Court Directs UP Chief Secretary to Fix Accountability

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to personally inquire into repeated instances of non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations, observing that such “coincidences” surface particularly when courts call for footage.

Observing that if one instance could be treated as an accident, repeated occurrences suggest a pattern, court invoked the well-known phrase, “once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times a pattern.”

It went further to quote a line popularised by Ian Fleming in the James Bond film Goldfinger: “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Sundar Agrahari, who sought quashing of an FIR dated September 6, 2025, registered under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code) at Police Station Motigarpur, Sultanpur. A charge sheet in the matter was submitted on November 14, 2025, during the pendency of the proceedings.

The petitioner alleged that in the intervening night of September 6–7, 2025, around 1:00 a.m., police personnel forcibly entered his residence, picked him up without warrant or notice, and subjected him to custodial torture and physical assault. He claimed he is 56 years old and 40% physically disabled, and argued that the allegations in the FIR were false and inherently improbable.

Earlier, the high court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, and other concerned officers to file personal affidavits and produce CCTV footage from around the petitioner’s residence as well as the police station premises, along with call detail records. In compliance, the Superintendent of Police and several officers appeared before the court and filed affidavits. A three-member committee was also constituted on September 18, 2025, to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations.

However, court found serious inconsistencies in the explanation offered by the police regarding CCTV footage. The authorities placed on record a report stating that CCTV cameras had been non-functional since June 1, 2025. Yet, no corresponding general diary entry was produced to support this claim. Court noted that entries about repairs were made only after its order dated September 9, 2025, directing production of footage.

The bench observed that it had repeatedly encountered similar situations in other cases, where CCTV cameras are reported to be non-functional precisely when footage is sought by courts. It remarked that repeated “coincidences” cannot be brushed aside and indicated a prima facie attempt to evade the obligation of preserving and producing CCTV footage.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, the high court noted that directions had been issued for preservation of CCTV footage for periods extending up to 18 months, and at least six months. The bench observed that failure to preserve footage in the present case was not only contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate but also in violation of a circular issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, dated June 20, 2025.

Terming the issue serious, court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to personally inquire into the recurring glitches in CCTV systems in police stations, especially in cases where footage is required by courts.  The inquiry is also to examine the facts of the present case and frame requisite guidelines, fixing responsibility at the highest district level, including the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police.

Court made it clear that accountability must flow from the top, rather than lower-ranking officials being made scapegoats. It directed that the inquiry report, along with guidelines, be submitted by way of a personal affidavit of the chief secretary by February 23, 2026, failing which he shall appear in person before the court.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 23, 2026.

Case Title: Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Sundar Agrahari vs. State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others

Order Date: February 4, 2026

Bench: Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani