CCTV surveillance in police stations is essential for custodial justice but implementation remains poor. Examine reasons and suggest reforms.

Q. CCTV surveillance in police stations is essential for custodial justice but implementation remains poor. Examine reasons and suggest reforms. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2 December 2020), the Supreme Court made night-vision, audio-enabled CCTVs mandatory in every police station — and in CBI, NIA and ED premises — as a direct enforcement of Article 21, with footage preserved for one to eighteen months [1]. Six years on, the mandate remains largely on paper, making implementation, not intent, the real challenge.

Why CCTV surveillance is essential - Deterrence against custodial torture: continuous recording removes the unwitnessed interrogation space where custodial violence occurs, protecting undertrials and vulnerable detainees [1]. - Evidentiary value: footage aids both complainants alleging abuse and police facing false accusations, strengthening fair investigation. - Institutional accountability: District and State Oversight Committees plus the Central Oversight Body were created to review footage and complaints [1].

Reasons for poor implementation - Fiscal dependence and Centre-State friction: police is a State subject, but funding flows through the MHA's Modernisation of Police Forces umbrella scheme (₹25,060 crore for 2017-20) [2]; States have sought Central support for installation, and the Supreme Court in 2026 asked the Centre to consider these fund requests [3]. - Chronic fund underutilisation: States used only about 14% of modernisation grants in 2015-16, with average utilisation near 55% over 2009-16 [4]. - Neglect of recurring costs: budgets cover installation, not maintenance, storage and power backup — leaving many cameras non-functional. - Weak oversight culture: Oversight Committees often meet rarely; non-compliance has drawn repeated judicial reprimand, echoing the unimplemented Prakash Singh (2006) directives [4].

Reforms suggested - Ring-fence a dedicated CCTV sub-head within police modernisation grants, covering maintenance and cloud storage, not just hardware. - Build a centralised compliance dashboard publishing camera uptime station-wise, as urged by the Court [3]. - Make Oversight Committee meetings and audit reports periodic and public, with accountability fixed on the SHO for tampering. - Integrate footage access with legal-aid bodies so detainees can actually invoke it.

Custodial justice ultimately rests on execution, not declaration. Converting judicial mandate into funded, maintained and audited infrastructure — through cooperative Centre-State financing — would transform police stations from opaque spaces into accountable ones, realising the dignity Article 21 promises.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, Supreme Court of India (2 Dec 2020) — CCTV mandate under Article 21, coverage of CBI/NIA/ED, 1–18 month retention, Oversight Committees 2. Cabinet approves umbrella scheme of Modernisation of Police Forces — PIB — ₹25,060 crore outlay for 2017-18 to 2019-20 under MHA 3. Consider requests on CCTV funds for police stations: SC — The Hindu (14 May 2026) — Court urging Centre on State fund requests and centralised monitoring 4. Modernisation of Police Forces — PRS Legislative Research — fund underutilisation data; non-implementation of Prakash Singh (2006) directives