New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure over the Centre nominating an officer of the rank of under secretary to attend a high level meeting on the installation of CCTVs in all police stations across the country, and then exempted Union home secretary Govind Mohan’s personal presence at the next hearing after Attorney General R Venkataramani agreed to resolve the matter.
With the home secretary present in court, the bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “You (Centre) should know whom to send for a meeting when the Supreme Court has constituted a committee.”
Responding to this, Attorney General R Venkataramani said, “I am taking stock of all the issues. The subject ‘police’ is a state issue. We will need a lot of coordination. At the same time, we do not want to transcend the federal limits.” Venkataramani sought two weeks time to have a meeting with the amicus curiae and to work out modalities for resolving issues arising in the implementation of the court’s judgment.
A day earlier, the court had summoned the Union home secretary to appear personally after it noted a casual approach by Centre in the meetings conducted by the amicus curiae bringing Centre, states and union territories on board to identify gaps in the compulsory implementation of CCTVs in all police stations and central probe agencies as laid down in a 2021 judgment.
The 2021 judgment directed CCTVs to be installed at all entry and exit points, main gate of the police station, all lock-ups, all corridors, lobby/the reception area, all verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s room, Sub-Inspector’s room, areas outside the lock-up room, station hall, in front of the police station compound; outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer’s room and back area of the police station.
{{/usCountry}}The 2021 judgment directed CCTVs to be installed at all entry and exit points, main gate of the police station, all lock-ups, all corridors, lobby/the reception area, all verandas/outhouses, Inspector’s room, Sub-Inspector’s room, areas outside the lock-up room, station hall, in front of the police station compound; outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer’s room and back area of the police station.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Siddharth Dave assisting the court as amicus was also present in court. He had submitted a report on Monday stating that the participation of the Centre “was most ineffective and disappointing”.
He had informed the court that on the first meeting held on February 21 this year, the Centre did not turn up and a month later, an Under Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) represented the Union government in the meeting. This officer failed to give any effective response to the queries raised by Dave and sought time to consult and discuss the matter with his superior officials.
Again on the next occasion, he informed that the “feasibility and data security” aspects have to be examined by states/UTs and MHA can only be a facilitator on providing technical expertise, support, and operation of the centralized dashboard or software system.
“It is evident that there is no effective response whatsoever by the Union of India with regard to the queries and directions of this court,” Dave said, which made the court observe, “You bring your home secretary. It seems he is not listening to what you say.”
The bench pointed out that out of all states, the amicus found Kerala to have the best model. Kerala has a software which allows senior police officials to access what is happening across any police station at the click of a button, the amicus said. He also expressed satisfaction with implementation by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
“Why can’t you have the same software that Kerala has,” the bench asked AG.
Scheduling the matter for next hearing on April 28, the bench said, “Attorney General has stated that in two weeks he will ensure all issues are sorted out by holding regular meetings with the amicus curiae and all concerned officials.”
In view of the assurance, the order exempted the home secretary’s personal presence at the next date of hearing.
The order was passed in a suo motu proceeding initiated last year when cognisance was taken of a news report from Rajasthan showing non-functional CCTVs in Udaipur pursuant to which the court sought compliance reports from Centre, states and union territories. Along with this matter, the court took up implementation of its 2021 Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh judgment.
Dave had informed the court that some states are facing peculiar challenges in implementation due to difficult topography, adverse weather conditions, lack of funds and frequent electricity disruption. This was coming in the way of having a centralized dashboard or a district-Level dashboard. This was more seen in hill states or northeastern states.
While taking up the suo motu matter in September 2025, the court had indicated that while the directions in the 2021 judgment are comprehensive, there is need for an oversight mechanism to ensure CCTVs installed at police stations are not manually switched off. The court mooted the idea of having a centralised control room that can alert each time there is any tampering or manual intervention to switch it off.
The order in 2021 was passed while examining a case of custodial torture from Punjab. It mandated that cameras must have night vision, record both audio and video, and store data for at least one year, preferably 18 months.