Supreme Court Summons Union Home Secretary Over CCTV Gaps In Police Stations
Supreme Court sought the personal presence of the Union Home Secretary while flagging gaps in CCTV installation and monitoring across police stations in several states
Supreme Court directs Union Home Secretary to appear over gaps in CCTV installation in police stations across India
The Supreme Court on Monday took strong note of gaps in the installation and monitoring of CCTV cameras in police stations across India, directing the personal appearance of the Union Home Secretary in an ongoing suo motu case examining compliance with its earlier directions.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was informed by Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, appearing as amicus curiae, that while several states have made significant progress, others continue to lag behind. Highlighting the disparity, Dave pointed out that states like Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan have implemented robust systems, with Kerala enabling real-time monitoring of police stations through mobile access for officers.
Expressing concern over non-compliance, the Court flagged Jharkhand as a state where little progress had been made in installing CCTV cameras. It also noted deficiencies in Delhi and certain central agencies. The bench observed that while installation has largely been completed in many states, compliance with dashboard monitoring systems remains pending.
The Court also raised concerns over reports that certain CCTV cameras sourced from “neighbouring countries” may need to be removed due to data security risks, questioning how states would manage funding constraints in such a scenario. It suggested that states adopt best practices, particularly the “Kerala model,” and work in coordination with the Union government to standardise implementation.
During the hearing, the bench underscored that the scheme is jointly funded, with states contributing 40% and the Union 60%, and stressed that lack of coordination cannot be an excuse for non-compliance. “If Kerala has the best system, why can’t other states follow it?” the Court remarked, urging authorities to take the issue seriously.
In its order, the Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on the next day and asked the Union Home Secretary to remain personally present to assist the Court in ensuring effective implementation of the CCTV scheme in police stations nationwide.
Notably, in November 2025, the Bench had granted three weeks' time to the Union government and the states for filing compliance affidavit in the suo motu case initiated by the court on the issue of CCTVs in police stations. "We have perused the tabulation chart by the amicus. We find that only 11 states have filed their compliance affidavit. Request has been made by Solicitor General that 3 weeks' time may be granted within which compliance affidavit may be filed. We grant 3 weeks time to the states also who have not filed. List again on December 16. If they are not filed by the next date, Principal Secretaries of the department of home shall remain present before this court along with their respective explanations", a Justice Vikram Nath led bench had ordered.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had raised serious concerns over the lack of CCTV cameras in the interrogation rooms of police stations across Rajasthan, emphasizing the human rights implications of such a gap. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta had further noted that interrogation rooms are the “main place” where CCTV surveillance is essential to ensure transparency and accountability.
The observations were made during the hearing of a suo motu case concerning the lack of functional CCTVs in police stations, reflecting growing judicial scrutiny over police accountability and custodial safeguards in the state.
Previously, on September 26, the Court had directed that specific information on 12 key points be provided by all States and Union Territories within three weeks. The details required include status of CCTV installation, functionality, storage of footage, and monitoring mechanisms.
The Apex Court had initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) on the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country, following media reports of 11 custodial deaths in 2025. The Bench had taken note of a report published in Dainik Bhaskar highlighting the alarming rise in custodial deaths over the past seven to eight months.
“Based on Dainik Bhaskar, we are directing a suo motu PIL titled Lack of functional CCTVs in police stations, as 11 custodial deaths were reported in 2025 over the past 7–8 months,” Justice Nath had observed. The Court’s intervention marked a significant step towards enforcing compliance with its earlier directions mandating CCTV installation in all police stations to ensure transparency and accountability.
The Dainik Bhaskar report stated, "There have been 11 deaths in police custody in the state within 8 months of 2025. 7 deaths have occurred in Udaipur division. In August, two bullion traders died in Kankroli police station of Rajsamand district and Rishabhdev police station of Udaipur district. Information was sought under RTI in all the cases."
The development came nearly five years after the Supreme Court, in a landmark 2020 judgment delivered by Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, KM Joseph and Aniruddha Bose, had made CCTV installation in all police stations across the country mandatory. In that verdict, the Court had also directed the Union government to install CCTV cameras in the offices of agencies such as the CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI and SFIO, where interrogation of accused persons is carried out. The Bench had further mandated that all CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and include both audio and video recording. The 2020 judgment had underlined that in the event of custodial violence or death, the victims or their families could approach Human Rights Courts to secure CCTV footage, ensuring accountability. Despite these directions, compliance has remained patchy, with authorities frequently citing non-functional cameras or missing footage when called upon to produce records in cases of custodial violence.
Case Title: In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Hearing Date: April 6, 2026