Custodial Violence and the Illusion of Surveillance: Rethinking CCTV Compliance in India
Share on:
Introduction
Custodial violence remains one of the most persistent challenges to constitutional governance in India. Despite judicial interventions aimed at enhancing transparency within police institutions, implementation gaps continue to undermine the promise of accountability. One of the most significant safeguards introduced in recent years has been the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in police stations. However, the gap between judicial intent and administrative execution has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of this reform.
This article examines the constitutional foundation of CCTV mandates, the practical shortcomings in implementation, and the broader implications for the rule of law.
Constitutional Framework and Judicial Mandate
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against torture and inhuman treatment. The judiciary has consistently interpreted this right expansively, emphasizing procedural fairness and custodial safeguards.
In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, the Supreme Court of India issued comprehensive directions mandating the installation of CCTV cameras with both audio and video recording facilities in all police stations and investigative offices across the country. The Court further directed that footage be preserved for a reasonable duration and be made accessible for investigative and judicial purposes in cases alleging custodial abuse.
The decision was positioned not merely as an administrative reform, but as a constitutional necessity to protect human dignity.
The Implementation Gap
Despite clear judicial directives, compliance has been uneven across several states. Reports and court proceedings have revealed recurring issues such as:
- Inadequate storage capacity resulting in short retention periods
- Non-functional cameras due to poor maintenance
- Absence of independent oversight mechanisms
- Lack of backup power systems
- Limited transparency regarding procurement and technical standards
In some instances, High Courts have been compelled to question executive circulars or administrative practices that appear inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions. Such judicial observations underscore the tension between normative constitutional standards and bureaucratic realities.
Surveillance as Safeguard — Not Symbolism
The installation of CCTV cameras was intended to serve three interrelated purposes:
- Deterrence – discouraging custodial misconduct
- Documentation – creating an evidentiary record
- Accountability – enabling independent review
However, when cameras are poorly maintained or footage is not preserved for adequate durations, surveillance becomes symbolic rather than substantive. The presence of hardware alone cannot guarantee transparency; its operational integrity is equally essential.
Broader Implications for Rule of Law
The rule of law demands that state power, particularly coercive power, be exercised within constitutional limits. Custodial spaces are inherently opaque, making oversight mechanisms indispensable. Failure to meaningfully implement CCTV directives weakens public confidence in law enforcement institutions and undermines the constitutional promise of dignity.
Moreover, the logic underlying CCTV installation is not confined to traditional police stations. Any authority exercising arrest or detention powers may warrant similar transparency standards.
The Way Forward
To ensure that surveillance reforms fulfill their constitutional purpose, the following measures merit consideration:
- Independent auditing of CCTV functionality
- Standardized minimum retention periods nationwide
- Real-time monitoring mechanisms under judicial supervision
- Clear penalties for deliberate non-compliance
- Budgetary allocation dedicated specifically to maintenance and upgrades
Transparency mechanisms must be designed as enforceable obligations, not discretionary administrative measures.
Conclusion
Judicial mandates reflect constitutional ideals, but their transformative potential depends on faithful implementation. The promise of CCTV surveillance in custodial settings lies not in the installation of cameras, but in their sustained and accountable operation. If implemented in spirit and substance, such measures can strengthen due process protections and reaffirm the centrality of human dignity within India’s criminal justice system.
