Karnataka High Court: Emphasising that CCTV surveillance in police stations is an essential accountability mechanism and not merely a matter of installing cameras, a Single Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., directed the State to undertake a State-wide technical and administrative audit of CCTV systems and their power-backup arrangements in all police stations.
The Court while examining the non-availability of CCTV footage from Whitefield Police Station in connection with an alleged incident, held that merely installing CCTV cameras would not amount to compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions unless the systems remained continuously functional and capable of recording.
The Court further directed the State authorities to establish a real-time monitoring and accountability mechanism to detect failures, ensure timely repairs and fix responsibility for prolonged non-functioning of CCTV systems.
Background
The matter arose from the alleged non-availability of CCTV footage from Whitefield Police Station in connection with an alleged incident stated to have occurred on 4 September 2024 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. The State attempted to explain the absence of CCTV footage by referring to a failure of the UPS system at the police station.
The respondent-State submitted that the CCTV system at Whitefield Police Station operated only when there was a supply of mains electricity. According to the State, during a power failure, the CCTV system could function only with the assistance of a working UPS. It was submitted that the UPS had remained non-functional for nearly 11 months, including on 4 September 2024, the date of the alleged incident. On that basis, the State contended that if there had been a power outage during the relevant period, the CCTV system would not have recorded the incident.
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that CCTV cameras in police stations were installed pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2115 with the objective of monitoring activities within police stations and addressing complaints concerning atrocities and other misconduct. The Court emphasised that the installation of CCTV cameras was intended to promote transparency, accountability and preservation of evidence.
The Court emphasised that the very purpose of CCTV surveillance would be defeated if the system became non-functional whenever there was a power outage. A UPS was intended precisely to provide backup power in such circumstances. Therefore, if the UPS at Whitefield Police Station had remained defective for nearly 11 months, the Station House Officer could not simply remain passive. The supervisory officers responsible for the police station also could not avoid responsibility. The Court made it clear that once a defective UPS was brought to the attention of the authorities, immediate steps ought to have been taken to repair or replace it. Responsibility for ensuring that CCTV systems remain operational does not rest exclusively with a single officer. The Court indicated that the officers responsible for maintenance and supervision at different levels must ensure that the CCTV system remains functional continuously, including during interruptions in the electricity supply.
The Court also considered a report containing details of CCTV cameras and UPS systems installed in various police stations. The report raised several concerns. The Court noted that, under the column relating to the status of UPS systems, the expression indicating that a UPS was “not working” appeared to have been recorded as “nil”, which created an impression that CCTV systems were functioning continuously throughout the year. The Court found this aspect of the report disturbing. While many police stations reportedly had approximately 4 CCTV cameras, the capacity of the UPS systems differed considerably. Some police stations had UPS systems of only 0.5 KVA or 1 KVA, whereas other locations reportedly had much larger capacities, extending up to 600 KVA. In some cases, the CCTV system was connected to the main UPS of the police station.
The Court observed that the report did not adequately explain the basis for these differences in capacity. It was also unclear whether the UPS installed at a particular police station had sufficient capacity to operate all CCTV cameras and recording equipment during a power failure. The Court further questioned whether CCTV systems had dedicated UPS facilities in the police station. The Court emphasised that mere physical installation of CCTV cameras cannot amount to compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. Compliance requires the CCTV system to remain continuously functional and capable of recording. A CCTV camera without dependable power backup becomes useless during power interruptions. Therefore, adequate backup power must be provided, maintained and periodically checked.
In view of these concerns, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Home Department, and the Director General and Inspector General of Police to personally examine the issue and ensure that a detailed enquiry is conducted throughout Karnataka. The enquiry is required to cover all police stations and establishments in the State.
The Court directed that the technical and administrative audit should determine the number and location of CCTV cameras at every police station and whether important areas such as lock-ups, entrances, exits, corridors, interrogation rooms and other vulnerable areas are covered. The enquiry must also examine whether each camera is operational, the date of installation, technical specifications, recording equipment, storage capacity and the functioning of the recording system.
The authorities have also been directed to ascertain whether CCTV footage is continuously recorded, how long it is preserved, whether it can be retrieved when required, and whether footage is stored locally or uploaded to a central server or cloud storage. The Court specifically wants to know whether footage remains accessible even if the local recording device fails. Particular attention has been directed to the power backup arrangements. The enquiry must determine whether each CCTV system has a dedicated UPS or is connected to the police station’s main UPS, the capacity of the UPS, its actual backup duration and whether it is sufficient to operate all cameras and recording equipment during power failures. The authorities must also determine whether the UPS is functional and, if not, from what date it has remained defective. The Court further directed an examination of complaints concerning defective UPS systems, including who made such complaints, to whom they were submitted, what action was taken, and which officer or authority was responsible for repair or replacement. Records of periodic inspections and maintenance are also to be examined.
With regard to the Whitefield Police Station incident specifically, the Court directed the enquiry to establish whether:
1. there was any interruption in the electricity supply on 4 September 2024 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m.,
2. there was a power failure, the exact time at which it commenced and ended,
3. the UPS was functioning on that day,
4. the UPS was not functioning, since when it had remained defective,
5. the CCTV cameras continued to record during the relevant period,
6. any footage was lost because of the failure of the UPS or any other reason,
7. any footage was uploaded to the cloud or any central server during that period,
8. such footage is still available, and
9. no footage is available, the exact reason for its non-availability.
Importantly, the Court directed that records from BESCOM regarding electricity supply to Whitefield Police Station on the relevant date must be obtained. These records are intended to independently verify the police authorities’ explanation concerning the availability or interruption of electricity. The enquiry shall also identify the officers responsible for ensuring that the CCTV system and the UPS remain functional in all police stations as also the Whitefield Police Station. It shall ascertain:
1. who is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of the CCTV system,
2. who is responsible for maintaining the UPS,
3. who is required to periodically inspect the system,
4. whether inspection reports are prepared,
5. whether any officer noticed that the UPS had become non-functional,
6. whether the matter was reported to higher authorities,
7. whether funds were available for repairs,
8. whether any delay occurred in sanctioning or carrying out repairs, and
9. whether any officer failed to discharge his duties.
The enquiry shall also examine whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding installation, operation, maintenance and preservation of CCTV footage have been fully complied with in every police station. If any deficiency is noticed, the reasons therefor shall be identified and immediate corrective measures shall be taken. The Principal Secretary and the Director General and Inspector General of Police shall also put in place a proper monitoring system throughout the State to ensure that:
1. every CCTV camera remains operational 24 hours a day,
2. recording takes place continuously without interruption,
3. adequate power backup is always available,
4. any failure of a camera, recorder or UPS is immediately detected,
5. repairs are carried out without delay,
6. footage is preserved for the required period,
7. regular inspections and audits are conducted,
8. higher officers receive periodic reports regarding the functioning of CCTV systems,
9. responsibility is fixed wherever prolonged failure of any CCTV system or power backup is noticed.
The Court went beyond the immediate dispute and directed the State to establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism for CCTV systems across Karnataka. The Police Computer Wing has been directed to design and implement a State-level information technology system capable of monitoring the functioning of CCTV systems in every police station. The proposed system is expected to provide a centralised dashboard showing the status of cameras, recorders, UPS systems and other connected equipment. It should generate automatic alerts when equipment becomes non-functional. It should maintain digital records showing when equipment became defective, when the defect was reported, to whom it was reported, what action was taken and when the defect was rectified. Unresolved faults are expected to be automatically escalated to appropriate supervisory officers.
The Court has further envisaged daily, weekly and monthly reports concerning CCTV uptime, failures and rectification times. An audit trail is to be maintained so that records relating to failures and repairs cannot be altered or deleted without leaving evidence of such alteration. The system should also facilitate verification that CCTV footage has been continuously recorded and preserved for the required period. The Police Computer Wing were directed to prepare and place before the Principal Secretary and the Director General and Inspector General of Police a standard operating procedure (SOP) prescribing the procedure for periodic audits and fixation of responsibility in the event of any lapse. It must be ensured that the above monitoring system is implemented in a time-bound manner in all police stations in the State.
The object of such a system shall be to ensure that failures are detected immediately, responsibility is fixed without delay, and the CCTV system remains operational at all times. The monitoring system shall move from a complaint-based approach to a real-time automated and accountable mechanism, so that prolonged failures do not go unnoticed. The Court further clarified that the above matters are only illustrative. The Principal Secretary and the Director General and Inspector General of Police shall be at liberty to examine any other issue connected therewith to ensure full and effective compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. The object of the enquiry shall not merely be to identify lapses in the present case but to ensure that such lapses do not occur in any police station in the State in future.
[V. Shailaja v. The Commissioner, WP 3931 of 2026, decided on 13-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondent: G.B. Sharath Gowda, AGA