The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Rajasthan government over the continued absence of CCTV cameras in police station interrogation rooms, warning that non-compliance with the Court’s 2020 order violated the fundamental principles of human rights and transparency in policing.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said interrogation rooms were “the main place where cameras must exist”, and expressed serious concern over custodial deaths and lack of accountability in the state.
“We understand the cost implications, but this is not merely an administrative issue — it is a question of human rights,” the bench observed.
📸 “How Will You Ensure Oversight Without CCTV?”
The Court asked Rajasthan to explain how it proposes to maintain oversight of police activities without surveillance in interrogation rooms.
During the hearing, the bench also floated the idea of involving third-party technology firms to create a centralized storage and monitoring system for CCTV feeds from police stations and public areas.
“If Infosys can handle the taxation system and Tata can manage passport services, then a similar agency can monitor CCTV feeds,” Justice Nath remarked, suggesting a public–private partnership for compliance.
🧾 Background: 2020 Supreme Court Order on Police CCTV Coverage
The observations came while the Court reviewed compliance with its December 2020 judgment, which mandated:
- CCTV cameras in all areas of police stations, except bathrooms and washrooms.
- Recording and retention of footage for at least 18 months.
- Installation of cameras in offices of central investigation agencies, including the CBI, ED, and NIA.
The 2020 order aimed to curb custodial torture, abuse, and illegal detention by ensuring that all police interactions with the public were recorded.
📉 Rajasthan in Spotlight After 11 Custodial Deaths
The bench took suo motu cognisance of a media report dated September 4, which revealed that 11 people had died in police custody in Rajasthan during the first eight months of 2025.
The alarming figure prompted the Court to demand an explanation from the state government and review progress on CCTV installations.
🧑⚖️ Amicus Flags Nationwide Non-Compliance
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing as amicus curiae, informed the Court that 16 states and three Union Territories, along with some central agencies, had still not complied fully with the 2020 directive.
He emphasized the need for a national oversight mechanism to ensure implementation, adding that mere policy circulars were insufficient without “live monitoring and accountability structures.”
🕊️ Court’s Human Rights Emphasis
The Supreme Court reiterated that custodial surveillance is an essential part of protecting civil liberties under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
“Transparency in policing is the first step toward accountability,” Justice Mehta said, reminding states that non-compliance could invite contempt proceedings.
The Court has directed the Union Home Ministry to file an updated status report on compliance across all states and union territories within four weeks.
📊 Key Takeaways
- Rajasthan pulled up for not installing CCTVs in interrogation rooms.
- SC calls absence of surveillance a “human rights issue.”
- 11 custodial deaths in Rajasthan this year prompted suo motu hearing.
- Only partial compliance with the Court’s 2020 directive across India.
- Proposal to engage tech firms like Infosys or Tata for centralized monitoring.
