CCTV cameras at police stations must remain functional 24x7: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has said that CCTV cameras installed at the police stations must remain operational 24x7 across the year with a record of steps taken to restore their functionality in case of any downtime [Mahendra Gaur and 3 Others v State of UP and 2 Others].

A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made the observation while dealing with a petition alleging the illegal detention of four persons by police in Uttar Pradesh’s Gauri Bazar.

The Court noted that as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, the CCTV footage of the day when the four persons were detained was not available, and that the Station House Officer had neither intimated his superior officers about the dysfunctional CCTV nor taken steps to get power supply restored.

The Court said that while mechanical and electronic devices can fail, the downtime must remain minimal and the SHO must take steps to restore the functionality of CCTVs.

In case he is unable to do so, the problem must be escalated to the superior officers, the Court added.

“The utility of the CCTV systems within the Thana is important and the same cannot be underscored enough. It provides evidence that can protect the police from allegations of excesses and deviations from the law and at the same time it is also evidence to damn their actions where the police resorts to extra judicial methods transgressing the law and trammeling on the constitutional rights of fellow citizens,” the Court emphasised. 

The Court went on to state that when the CCTV cameras fail, the police must resort to the old system of documenting the date and time of the entry of every suspect brought in for interrogation in the General Diary (GD). Thereafter, there must be a GD entry relating to the date and time at which the person leaves the station, it added.

“Abundans Cautela (abundant caution does no harm), the police is well advised to take a receipt from the person so called in for interrogation or his next of kin stating that the person is at liberty to leave the station and an endorsement by the person that he is at liberty to move out of the station giving the date and time at which he has been set free. As regards a person who is arrested in an offence, his memo of arrest would adequately disclose his arrest,” the Court further said. 

The Court also made it clear that an adverse inference would be drawn against the police if CCTV footage and documentation for the period a person was illegally detained is not available.  

“In a case where the CCTV footage of the station is not available for the period when the corpus alleges he was illegally detained, and there is no documentation to support the stand of the police that he was released from the station on a particular date and time then, s. 119(illustration [g]) of the BSA which reads 'evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it' would squarely apply on the police and the court would be justified in presuming that case of the petitioner is correct," the Court said.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court held that it can reasonably infer that the four petitioners were illegally detained by the police.

Dr. Mahendra Kumar, the SHO accused of the illegal detentions, sought pardon for the “alleged oversight”. However, the Court found that his actions reveal a case of executive overreach as he had “ridden roughshod on the rights of the petitioners."

It went to hold Kumar responsible for the illegal detentions and directed the State to pay a compensation of ₹20,000 to three persons detained illegally by the police and ₹5,000 to a man detained illegally for two days. 

“The State is also directed to recover this amount from the salary of of those responsible after an enquiry, and also ensure that the displeasure voiced by this court regarding his official conduct is recorded in his service book,” the Court ordered.

Advocates Archit Kumar Srivastava and Preete Chaudhary represented the petitioners.

[Read Order]