The Supreme Court, taking serious note of non-functional CCTV cameras in Rajasthan police stations, has directed the State government to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing 12 specific questions about the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of surveillance systems.
The order came in a suo motu case concerning police accountability and custodial safety, after the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta recorded that its attempts to obtain CCTV footage from Rajasthan police stations had failed. The Bench criticized the State authorities for refusing to supply the information on “frivolous grounds,” which it said reflects a direct breach of the Court’s binding directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020).
Back in December 2020, the Court had mandated every State and Union Territory to ensure that all police stations are equipped with functioning CCTV cameras. However, compliance has remained inconsistent, with either cameras not being installed or being rendered ineffective due to neglect, poor maintenance, or deliberate switching off.
On September 4, 2025, the Supreme Court registered the present suo motu writ petition after a Dainik Bhaskar investigation revealed that approximately 11 people had died in police custody in Rajasthan within a period of seven to eight months. Concerned about the systemic failures that allow custodial violence and deaths to occur unchecked, the Bench decided to examine whether its earlier directions were being honoured in letter and spirit.
12 Key Queries to Rajasthan Government
The Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to file an affidavit within two weeks answering the following questions:
1. Number of police stations in each district.
2. Number and placement of cameras installed in each station.
3. Camera specifications, including resolution, night vision, audio capability, field of view, and tamper-detection features.
4. Mechanism for data storage and the period of retention of video footage.
5. Frequency of maintenance activity and system checks.
6. Escalation mechanism and response process when cameras malfunction.
7. Availability of internet connectivity and whether feeds are integrated with a central server or control room.
8. Existence of software systems and centralized dashboards for monitoring.
9. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for officer training on data access, retention, tamper-proofing, data protection compliance, and judicial admissibility.
10. Records of regular audits conducted to verify camera functionality.
11. Whether audit of logs and integrity of footage is carried out.
12. Existence of provisions for surprise inspections and forensic validation of tamper-proofing measures.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave highlighted that while some states had complied with the Court’s 2020 ruling, many—including premier central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), National Investigation Agency (NIA), and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)—had not. He also cautioned against the practice of police personnel manually disabling CCTV cameras, thereby undermining accountability.
Justice Sandeep Mehta responded pointedly:
“Today there may be a compliance affidavit, tomorrow officers may switch off the cameras. Oversight is the real issue.”
The Bench floated the idea of independent, technology-driven monitoring to ensure that the system cannot be manipulated by human interference. It suggested that a central control room should raise automatic alerts if cameras go offline, and even proposed involving IITs or similar institutions to design tamper-proof, self-monitoring systems.
The Court underscored that mere compliance on paper does not serve the purpose of safeguarding fundamental rights. Custodial deaths and torture represent some of the gravest violations of constitutional guarantees, and surveillance systems like CCTVs must be made foolproof to deter abuse of power.
While reserving its order, the Bench hinted at moving toward independent oversight mechanisms that go beyond affidavits of compliance, signalling that stricter judicial scrutiny of police practices may follow.
Case Title: In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations, SMW(C) No. 7/2025.
