Examine how CCTV mandates and the *D.K. Basu* guidelines have shaped police accountability. Why do violations continue?

Article 21 allows liberty to be taken away only by a "just, fair and reasonable" procedure. D.K. Basu (1997) and Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) turned that promise into custody rules the police must follow. Yet in November 2026 the Allahabad High Court called rights violations "a matter of routine" for the U.P. Police [1]. These safeguards have changed the law, but they have not yet changed practice.

How the mandates shaped accountability

• Arrest made a recorded act: D.K. Basu requires an arrest memo signed by a witness, informing a relative, and name tags for officers. These rules were later written into the CrPC and now the BNSS, 2023.
• Evidence the police do not write: Paramvir Singh Saini ordered CCTV in all police stations and in central agency offices. This gives an independent check on the police's own records.
• Courts use them as a benchmark: The Allahabad HC rejected a "CCTV malfunction" defence in an alleged illegal detention in Bijnor. It ordered release and imposed ₹20,000 costs [1]. The SC also found no camera in a Surat interrogation room [2].
• Compensation as a remedy: Costs and compensation follow the Nilabati Behera principle of State liability.

Why violations continue

• The police control the record: The 24-hour production rule (Art. 22(2)) counts from the recorded arrest. In Bijnor, the pickup allegedly happened on 5 September, but the arrest was recorded on 7 September [1].
• Weak penalties: The SC dropped contempt notices against senior officers and left the CCTV lapses to departmental action [2]. Out of 11,419 custodial-death cases (2016–22), the NHRC recommended prosecution in none [3].
• Toothless oversight: Many Police Complaints Authorities set up under Prakash Singh cannot issue binding directions. As of 2016, U.P. had not notified one [4].
• No anti-torture law: The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 lapsed [5]. The Law Commission's 273rd Report (2017) drafted a replacement bill that has not been enacted [6].
• Scale of custodial harm: U.P. recorded 448 judicial-custody deaths in 2021-22, the highest in India [3].

The D.K. Basu rules and the CCTV mandate gave custody a paper trail, but the State still holds that trail. The way forward:

• a central CCTV dashboard that flags camera failures as they happen;
• courts treating missing footage as evidence against the State;
• statutory PCAs with suo motu powers;
• an anti-torture law based on the 273rd Report, which would allow India to ratify UNCAT.

Together, these would give real effect to Article 21 and SDG 16's goal of accountable institutions.