Supreme Court: Flags Jharkhand Police Station CCTV Non-Compliance

• The Supreme Court flagged Jharkhand's non-compliance, noting no new CCTV cameras have been installed in its police stations since 2020.
• Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta are overseeing suo motu proceedings on police station CCTV installation nationwide.
• The Court questioned the Union Government on funding for surveillance infrastructure and the transition to a new ₹24,000 crore Police Modernization Mission.
• Concerns were raised about existing funds lapsing and the immediate utilization of available resources for CCTV infrastructure.
• The Supreme Court has previously emphasized the need for adequate maintenance and Annual Maintenance Contracts for installed cameras.

The Supreme Court of India recently expressed significant concern over the persistent lack of surveillance infrastructure in Jharkhand's police stations, specifically noting that not a single new CCTV camera has been installed in the state since 2020.

The Supreme Court of India recently expressed significant concern over the persistent lack of surveillance infrastructure in Jharkhand's police stations, specifically noting that not a single new CCTV camera has been installed in the state since 2020. This revelation came during ongoing suo motu proceedings initiated by the Court to ensure the proper installation of CCTV cameras across police stations nationwide, a directive aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability.

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the bench, were informed by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, who is involved in the matter, that Jharkhand had failed to provide specific details requested by the Court on August 3. Dave underscored the severity of the non-compliance, stating emphatically that there had been "not one CCTV camera" installed in the state's police stations since 2020. The bench subsequently directed that Jharkhand's precise position regarding this non-compliance be formally indicated.

This documented lack of functional surveillance infrastructure in Jharkhand's police stations could have significant implications for legal practitioners handling cases originating from these facilities. The absence of CCTV footage may impact the availability of crucial evidence, potentially hindering investigations or accountability claims. For lawyers, understanding this systemic gap is vital when assessing the strength of a case or challenging procedural aspects.

Beyond Jharkhand's specific non-compliance, the Supreme Court also directed pointed questions to the Union Government regarding the funding mechanisms for police surveillance infrastructure. Senior Advocate Dave referenced an affidavit filed by the Union Government on August 31, which outlined a proposal for a new police modernization scheme.

This proposed initiative, dubbed the Police Modernization Mission (PMM), aims to future-proof and modernize police and internal security infrastructure through technology, targeted investments, and reforms. It envisions a substantial outlay of ₹24,000 crore over five years. However, the amicus curiae highlighted that the existing police modernization scheme was nearing its conclusion, urging the Court to ensure that currently available funds did not lapse and stressing the critical need for continuous funding for CCTV infrastructure. The Court pressed the Centre on how balance funds would automatically transfer to the new scheme and why existing funds couldn't be immediately utilized to bolster police station CCTV infrastructure, despite Dave's assurance that the PMM would adequately provide for cameras as an integral part of modernization. The existing police modernization scheme in Assam, for instance, has been extended until March 31, 2027.

The bench emphasized the immediate necessity of addressing any funding gaps. The Court formally acknowledged the Union's affidavit and instructed Additional Solicitor General Raja Thackeray to obtain further instructions from the government on these critical funding issues. This ongoing scrutiny by the India Supreme Court into police modernization scheme funding underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring robust police surveillance infrastructure.

The Supreme Court's recent observations are part of a broader, long-standing effort to ensure comprehensive and functional surveillance in police stations. In July, the Court had already underscored that merely installing CCTV cameras was insufficient without robust maintenance mechanisms. Justice Sandeep Mehta specifically noted that without proper maintenance, including Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs), cameras would inevitably become defunct, rendering the entire exercise futile.

Earlier, on April 28, the Court had mandated a meeting to be convened on May 6. This meeting, to be led by the amicus curiae, was tasked with examining the utilization of funds allocated for CCTV installation across the country. Key participants were designated to include the home secretary of the central government, or a nominee not below the rank of joint or additional secretary, alongside the home secretaries of all states and Union Territories. This directive followed an assurance given by Attorney General R. Venkataramani on April 7, who stated that the government was actively reviewing the situation and that all issues concerning CCTV installation would be resolved within two weeks.

Compliance officers within state police departments, particularly in Jharkhand, must prioritize adherence to these Supreme Court directives on surveillance infrastructure to mitigate significant legal and reputational risks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 21, indicating the Court's continued vigilance over the implementation of these crucial reforms.

Lawyers handling cases involving police stations in Jharkhand should be aware of the documented lack of CCTV surveillance, which may impact evidence availability or accountability claims. Compliance officers in state police departments must prioritize adherence to Supreme Court directives on surveillance infrastructure to mitigate legal and reputational risks.

Source: Original reporting via LiveLaw