The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that CCTV cameras installed at police stations cannot be allowed to remain non-functional without explanation. The cameras must operate round the clock throughout the year, and any interruption must be promptly addressed and properly documented.
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant issued the directions while hearing a petition concerning the alleged illegal detention of four people at Gauri Bazar police station in Uttar Pradesh in Mahendra Gaur and 3 Others v. State of UP and 2 Others.
The Court took note of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, which stated that CCTV footage from the relevant period was unavailable. The Station House Officer had neither informed senior officials that the surveillance system was not working nor taken adequate steps to restore the power supply.
The Bench acknowledged that electronic and mechanical systems can malfunction. However, such failures cannot be treated casually. According to the Court, downtime must be kept to a minimum, and the SHO is expected to take immediate steps to restore the cameras. If the problem cannot be resolved at the station level, it must be brought to the attention of senior officers.
The Court highlighted the importance of CCTV surveillance at police stations not only as a safeguard against police misconduct but also as protection for police officers against unfounded allegations.
What happens when CCTV fails?
The Bench said that where CCTV footage is unavailable, police must fall back on proper contemporaneous documentation.
The General Diary should record the date and time when every person brought to the station for interrogation enters the premises and when that person leaves. The Court also advised police to obtain an acknowledgement from the person or their family member recording that the individual was free to leave the station.
For a person formally arrested in connection with an offence, the arrest memo would provide the necessary record.
The Court stressed that maintaining such records becomes particularly important when surveillance footage is unavailable.
It further held that if CCTV footage covering the period of an alleged illegal detention is missing and police cannot produce documentation showing when the person was released, the court may draw an adverse inference against the police under Section 119, Illustration (g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
In other words, evidence that should have existed but was not produced could be treated as evidence that would have gone against the party withholding it.
Court finds illegal detention established
Applying these principles to the case before it, the Bench concluded that the circumstances supported the petitioners’ allegation that they had been illegally detained.
Dr. Mahendra Kumar, the Station House Officer concerned, sought pardon for what he described as an oversight. The Court, however, held that his conduct amounted to executive overreach and found that the rights of the petitioners had been disregarded.
The Court held Kumar responsible for the illegal detentions and directed the State to pay compensation of ₹20,000 each to three of the persons illegally detained. Another person, who was found to have been detained for two days, was awarded ₹5,000.
The Court further directed the State to conduct an enquiry and recover the compensation amount from the salaries of those found responsible. It also ordered that the Court’s displeasure regarding the officer’s conduct be recorded in his service book.
The ruling thus places a clear obligation on police authorities: CCTV systems at police stations are not merely surveillance equipment. Their continuous operation, and the documentation of any failure, can become crucial when allegations of unlawful detention or other violations of individual rights come before a court.