Technology-driven policing (CCTV surveillance, centralised dashboards) can improve accountability but also raises concerns of privacy and effective utilisation. Comment.

Q. Technology-driven policing (CCTV surveillance, centralised dashboards) can improve accountability but also raises concerns of privacy and effective utilisation. Comment. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh made CCTV coverage of lock-ups, corridors and interrogation rooms mandatory, anchoring surveillance technology in the Article 21 protection against custodial torture [1]. Technology is thus a genuine accountability tool, but its value depends on privacy safeguards and on actual utilisation rather than mere installation.

How technology strengthens accountability - Custodial oversight: audio-video recording with night vision creates an independent evidentiary record, reducing the victim's burden of proving custodial excess; the Court fixed responsibility for upkeep on the SHO and mandated State-level oversight committees to review footage [1]. - Institutional capacity: the MHA umbrella scheme Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF), with a ₹4,846 crore outlay for the sub-scheme assisting States and UTs (2021-22 to 2025-26), funds modern technology, communication equipment and police-station infrastructure [2][3]. - Centralised monitoring: dashboards enable real-time tracking of compliance across thousands of police stations, replacing episodic affidavit-based reporting.

Concerns of privacy and utilisation - Privacy: continuous recording of complainants, witnesses and detainees creates sensitive personal data; the Puttaswamy privacy standard requires clear rules on retention, access and audit — largely absent in practice. - Utilisation gap: the Court took suo motu notice in 2025 after reports of non-functional CCTV cameras in Udaipur police stations, showing that maintenance, power supply and storage are the real bottleneck [4]. - Federal-fiscal friction: police is a State subject, so the Centre acts only as funder; the Union informed the Court in August 2026 that a fresh umbrella modernisation proposal, covering infrastructure and human resources, still awaits in-principle approval from the Finance Ministry's Department of Expenditure [5].

Technology is an enabler of accountability, not a substitute for reform. Statutory data-protection rules on footage, assured maintenance funding, and timely inter-ministerial clearance must accompany hardware — paired with the Prakash Singh (2006) structural reforms, so that a modernised police force serves both the rule of law and citizens' dignity.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh & Ors., Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 02-12-2020 — CCTV mandate, night-vision/audio-video recording, SHO responsibility, oversight committees 2. PIB, "Government of India approves continuation of umbrella scheme of Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF)" — MPF continuation 2021-22 to 2025-26; ₹4,846 crore outlay for State police modernisation 3. Ministry of Home Affairs, "Assistance to States & UTs for Modernisation of Police (ASUMP)" — scope of assistance: modern technology, weaponry, communication equipment, police-station infrastructure 4. News on AIR (Prasar Bharati), "Supreme Court takes suo motu notice over non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations" — 2025 suo motu proceeding; Udaipur non-functional cameras 5. "Police modernisation scheme awaits Finance Ministry's nod," The Hindu, August 6, 2026 — proposal with Department of Expenditure; covers infrastructure and human resources