Must Police Stations Have CCTV With Audio?

Paramvir Singh Saini's petition (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020) arose from a November 22, 2016 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRWP No. 1245 of 2016. The Supreme Court's order does not reproduce what the Trial Court or the High Court decided. So this article sticks to the dispute the Supreme Court actually dealt with: whether States were really putting CCTV in police stations.

The background sits in an earlier case, Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. In its order of April 3, 2018, the Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to set up a Central Oversight Body to push videography at crime scenes during investigation. The Court also held that every State needed an oversight mechanism, an independent committee that could study CCTV footage and periodically publish a report.

On July 16, 2020, the Court issued notice on two questions. One was audio-video recording of statements under Section 161 CrPC. The other was the larger issue of CCTV cameras in police stations generally. On September 16, 2020, it brought in every State and Union Territory to report the exact position of cameras in each police station.

The answers were thin. Compliance affidavits came from only 14 States and 2 Union Territories by November 24, 2020. Most failed to say how many police stations existed, how many cameras each had, where they were placed, whether they worked, or whether they recorded and for how many days. The position on oversight committees was also left undisclosed.

The Court's own words show what went wrong. It noted that "nothing substantial has been done" for over two and a half years since the first order of April 3, 2018. The directions were made in furtherance of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.

The deadlock, then, was about proof and accountability. Without station-by-station data, nobody could tell whether a camera existed, whether it worked, or whether its footage survived. The Court also had to deal with the proviso to Section 161(3) CrPC, which provides for audio-video recording of statements, while considering the wider question of CCTV in police stations.

If you are looking for the Supreme Court judgement on CCTV camera in police station PDF, the order is reported as [2020] 13 S.C.R. 770 (2020INSC672).

The Bench made CCTV a duty and spelled out the equipment needed. The core holding on equipment reads:

Footage must be stored on digital or network video recorders and preserved for 18 months. If equipment on the market cannot hold 18 months, States, Union Territories and the Central Government must buy equipment that stores for the maximum possible period, and in any case not below 1 year. They must keep reviewing the market until 18-month storage is available.

• Vague reporting is no longer enough. Every State and Union Territory had to file compliance affidavits within six weeks, signed by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, Home Department. They had to give the station count, camera count, camera positions, working condition and recording duration. A separate action plan with exact timelines had to be filed by the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretary or Home Secretary within the same six weeks.
• Someone is now answerable for each camera. The Station House Officer (SHO) is responsible for the working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs, including data backup and fault rectification. If cameras are down, the SHO must report to the District Level Oversight Committee and send it the record of arrests and interrogations carried out during that period.

The Court also set up a two-tier oversight structure. A State Level Oversight Committee and a District Level Oversight Committee must buy, install, monitor and repair the equipment, and the Finance Departments must provide the funds. The District Level Committee must also review stored footage for human rights violations that may not have been reported.

The Union of India was separately directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of the CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, SFIO and any other agency that carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest. Police stations and these agencies must display large posters in English, Hindi and the vernacular language. The posters must announce CCTV coverage and the right to complain, and state that footage is preserved for at least six months.

These are the core CCTV rules and regulations in India for police stations under this order. The Court listed locations so that a token camera at the gate would not count as compliance.

Lack of electricity or internet is not a stated excuse. The Court made it the duty of the States and Union Territories to provide power and internet, using any mode, including solar or wind power, and the internet must give clear image resolution and audio.

• Gather your records. Collect the dates and times of the arrest, detention and interrogation, the name of the police station, and any complaint already filed. These help identify which footage and which arrest or interrogation record are relevant.
• Choose the forum the judgment names. For force used at a police station resulting in serious injury or custodial death, complaints can go to the State Human Rights Commission, which uses its powers under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. They can also go to a Human Rights Court, which the Court said must be set up in each district under Section 30 of that Act. The poster text also names the Superintendent of Police or any other authority empowered to take cognizance of an offence as places to complain.
• Use the footage route the judgment gives. The Commission or Court can immediately summon the CCTV footage relating to the incident for safe keeping, and that footage can then be made available to an investigating agency. If a camera was reportedly faulty, the judgment requires the SHO to have reported it to the District Level Oversight Committee and sent in the arrest and interrogation record for that period.
• The mistake to avoid: Do not assume any police authority can summon the footage on its own. In this judgment, the power to summon footage for safe keeping sits with the Human Rights Commission or Human Rights Court.

The six-week deadline in the order applied to government affidavits. The judgment states no limitation period for a citizen's complaint.