Attorney General R. Venkataramani on Friday told the Supreme Court that authorities would take concrete steps within two weeks to address the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations.
He appeared for the Union Home Secretary. The Court had directed the Home Secretary’s personal presence a day earlier. The Attorney General said he had reviewed the matter. He added that he would meet Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, the Union Home Secretary, and other concerned officials. He said these meetings would help resolve the pending issues.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.
A day earlier, the Court directed the Union Home Secretary to remain personally present. It said his assistance was necessary for issuing directions on effective monitoring of CCTV installations across the States. During that hearing, the Amicus told the Court that Kerala, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh had already established dashboard systems. He added that other States, including Uttar Pradesh, were setting up similar systems. After hearing these submissions, the Court asked why other States were not following the “Kerala Model” of live monitoring.
When the matter came up again, the Bench repeated the same concern. It asked why other States could not adopt the Kerala model. The Amicus had described it as the best available system. The Bench asked why States should create separate software instead.
Justice Vikram Nath said:
“Yesterday, it came out that Kerala has come out with a very nice software and implemented it fully. So we were requesting the ASG why can’t you follow in all states instead of all states creating their own? According to Amicus, Kerala, MP and Rajasthan have already implemented and Kerala has the best (software),”
Justice Nath also questioned the Union’s decision to send an Under Secretary to a meeting. He noted that the Supreme Court had constituted a Committee. It had also appointed an Amicus. The Court had directed him to hold meetings with all States and Union Territories. In that context, the judge asked whether such representation was appropriate. He remarked:
“[You must know] who to send for the meeting when the Supreme Court has constituted a Committee, appointed Amicus and has directed him to hold meetings with all States/UT…Under Secretary representing Union, does it look nice?”
In response, the Attorney General apologised for his absence on the previous few occasions. He said the Under Secretary’s appearance was not meant to lessen the importance of the meeting. He also assured the Court that he would hold a meeting within a week.
The order records:
“Pursuant to our orders, Home Secretary is present, represented by ld. AG. Upon instructions, ld. AG has stated that within 2 weeks, he will make sure all issues are sorted out by holding regular meetings with Amicus, Home Secretary…”
Background
On September 4, 2025, the Supreme Court directed registration of a suo motu case in public interest. The case concerns the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took this step after a Dainik Bhaskar report. The report stated that around 11 people had died in police custody in the previous seven to eight months of that year.
Earlier, in December 2020, the Supreme Court passed directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh. It directed all State Governments and Union Territory Governments to install CCTV cameras in every police station under their control. Even so, compliance remained uneven. Many police stations did not install cameras. Many installed cameras had also stopped functioning.
On September 15, 2025, the Court made another observation in the suo motu case. It said it was considering independent monitoring of CCTV cameras without human intervention. It noted that officials could still switch off cameras. This could happen even where authorities had installed them in compliance with earlier directions.
On September 26, 2025, the Court passed an order putting 12 queries to the State of Rajasthan. It asked whether regular audits were being conducted to ensure CCTV cameras functioned properly. It also asked how long police station footage was preserved. In addition, the Court sought clarification on surprise inspections and forensic validation of tamper-proofing.
Later, on October 14, 2025, the Court asked the Rajasthan government why police stations lacked CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms. It also called on the State to explain its position on the 11 custodial deaths. These deaths were said to have occurred in the previous eight to nine months. During that hearing, Justice Mehta stressed that police station camera feeds must go to a central agency. He noted that Rajasthan already sends road CCTV footage to command centres. He said a similar model would ensure quick alerts. That, in turn, would allow officials to take immediate remedial steps when a camera stopped working.
Case Details
- IN RE LACK OF FUNCTIONAL CCTVS IN POLICE STATIONS Versus, SMW(C) No. 7/2025
- PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI Versus BALJIT SINGH, SLP (Crl) No.3543/2020 (and connected cases)
Also read: IPL Election PIL: Madras HC Rejects Plea
