Police stations across the country were yet to install CCTV cameras even after being directed to do so five years ago.
The top court has reopened the matter amid recent reports of custodial deaths.
On Thursday, September 4, 2025, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took suo motu cognisance of a Dainik Bhaskar report indicating that roughly 11 people had died in police custody over the last seven to eight months.
The development has renewed scrutiny of the 2020 judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh — authored by now-retired Justice Rohinton F. Nariman — which had ordered the Centre to make CCTV cameras and recording equipment mandatory in police stations as a deterrent to custodial torture.
The judgment extended the requirement to the offices of central investigative agencies that carry out interrogations and have arrest powers, including the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and “any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.”
The court had emphasised that CCTV and recording equipment were not mere technical additions but essential safeguards to protect the fundamental right to dignity and the right to life.
Justice Nariman had specifically directed that, “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.”
Beyond installation, the 2020 order envisaged institutional oversight and public notice: it required the constitution of oversight committees at both State and district levels to monitor installation, maintenance, functioning, budgeting, and repairs of CCTV systems.
It also mandated the display of large, prominent posters at police stations and agency offices informing visitors of CCTV coverage and advising that any person has the right to complain about human rights violations to the National/State Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Court, the Superintendent of Police, or any other authority empowered to take cognisance of an offence.
Importantly, the judgment required that recorded footage be preserved for not less than six months, and that victims of human rights violations within these premises have a right to access the footage.
Yet, five years on, the gap between judicial directions and on-the-ground reality has persisted.
In 2020, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman (now retired), in Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh, had directed the Centre to compulsorily install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in police stations as a deterrent against custodial torture.
The court had ordered similar surveillance in the offices of central agencies such as the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, and “any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest”.
The CCTVs and recording equipment, the court had said, would be used as a safeguard to protect the fundamental right to dignity and life.
“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,” Justice Nariman, who authored the judgment, had directed.
The judgment had also mandated the constitution of oversight committees at the State and district levels to monitor installation, functioning, budgetary needs, and repair of CCTV systems.
It required that large posters informing people about CCTV coverage be prominently displayed at the offices of these central agencies and police stations.
These posters were to clearly mention “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 cognisance of an offence”.
The court had further directed that CCTV footage be preserved for not less than six months. A victim of human rights violations within the precincts of these offices had the right to access the footage.
Citizens and rights groups point out a striking irony: many police stations now routinely ask complainants whether they possess video evidence of the incident they have come to report — while the same stations frequently lack properly functioning, sensitively placed CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms, holding areas, and other critical spaces.
In other words, complainants are often pressed to provide what the police themselves should have been recording.
The Supreme Court’s reopening of the matter signals urgency. The Bench’s review comes against the backdrop of alleged custodial deaths and persistent implementation lapses — from insufficient coverage and misplaced cameras to poor maintenance, lack of oversight, gaps in public information, and failures to preserve footage.
Unless the statutory safeguards ordered in Paramvir Singh Saini are fully implemented — and made transparent and accessible to the public — the very protections the court envisaged will remain illusory for those most vulnerable to custodial harm.
#SupremeCourt #CustodialDeaths #CCTV #PoliceReforms #HumanRights #ParamvirSinghSaini #Accountability #RightToDignity
