The Supreme Court has directed a high-level meeting on May 6, 2026, involving the Centre, states, and Union Territories, to scrutinize the utilization of funds allocated for installing CCTVs in police stations across the nation. This judicial push, stemming from a suo motu case initiated after a media report on the lack of functional surveillance, highlights ongoing concerns regarding police accountability and the protection of fundamental rights. The court’s agenda is to assess the feasibility, modalities, and implementation framework for a standardized CCTV infrastructure, including the creation of centralized dashboards for monitoring. The matter is slated for a follow-up hearing on May 13, 2026.
States Lag in Compliance, Centre's Promises Under Scrutiny
Recent court proceedings reveal a concerning disparity in states' responsiveness to the mandate for CCTV installation. As of November 25, 2025, only 11 states had provided responses regarding fund utilization. This lack of widespread compliance has prompted the court to summon the Union Home Secretary to appear before it on April 7, 2026, to aid in the implementation process. The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, had previously assured the court on April 7, 2026, that "all issues concerning installation of CCTVs in police stations would be sorted out within two weeks." However, the court’s continued insistence on the Home Secretary’s personal appearance and the scheduling of a dedicated meeting on fund utilization suggest that these assurances have not fully allayed judicial doubts.
Read More: Ganderbal Encounter Inquiry Ordered After Family Claims Civilian Death
The core of the current judicial intervention revolves around ensuring that allocated funds are effectively utilized for installing functional CCTV systems in all police stations, a measure deemed crucial for transparency and accountability.
Judicial Scrutiny Deepens on Custodial Safeguards
The Supreme Court's persistent focus on CCTV installation in police stations is intrinsically linked to preventing custodial deaths and protecting human rights. The court has explicitly stated that "the country will not tolerate" custodial deaths. This directive follows specific incidents, such as the deaths of two bullion traders in Rajasthan police stations in August 2025, which amplified concerns about the lack of adequate surveillance. The court’s intervention extends beyond just the installation of cameras; it encompasses the requirement for cameras with night vision and audio-video recording capabilities, covering all entry/exit points, lock-ups, corridors, and reception areas. The judiciary’s expanding ambit, as seen in a 2020 order, already mandated CCTV installation in interrogation offices of central agencies like the CBI, NIA, and ED, recognizing these as vital tools for safeguarding dignity and life.
Read More: NEET-UG Exam Cancelled Today Due to Paper Leaks; CBI Investigating
Funding Models and State Responses
The financial aspect of CCTV installation has emerged as a key point of discussion. Amicus Curiae Siddhartha Dave has flagged the current funding patterns, noting that the Centre fully funds CCTV installations in Union Territories and covers 90% of the costs in hilly states. The court is particularly interested in understanding how states are utilizing their share of the funds, especially given the diverse responses received. While many states are reportedly in the process of setting up centralized dashboards, the overall progress in installing functional cameras remains a point of contention, with states like Jharkhand flagged for making little headway.
Read More: Tripura Court Asks for Action Plan on Border Infiltration Within 3 Months
Background
The Supreme Court’s engagement with the issue of CCTV cameras in police stations is not new. It has been a sustained effort, initially triggered by a media report that brought to light the absence of functional surveillance equipment. The court’s persistent follow-up, including summoning high-ranking officials and directing meetings, underscores the gravity with which it views the matter. This judicial oversight reflects a broader trend of the courts stepping in to ensure the implementation of policies aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and the protection of citizens' rights within law enforcement agencies.
