Criminal Procedure Code

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh

(2021) 1 SCC 184

Facts

During proceedings concerning alleged custodial misconduct, a dispute arose regarding the availability of CCTV footage from a police station.
The Supreme Court found that despite earlier directions, many police stations lacked functioning cameras or proper systems for preserving recordings.
Allegations of torture and coercive interrogation often occur inside police premises where independent witnesses are absent.
The Court expanded the proceedings beyond the individual dispute and considered a nationwide system for audiovisual accountability in police stations and investigating agencies. ( )

Whether CCTV cameras must be installed in police stations and investigative offices.
What areas, technical standards and preservation periods should be covered.
How a detainee or court may obtain the footage.

Custodial safety forms part of Article 21 and the fair-investigation guarantee.
CCTV cameras must be installed at police stations in places where:
interrogation occurs;
persons are detained;
accused persons enter or leave;
and police interaction may affect liberty.
Cameras should cover, as far as practicable:
entrances and exits;
lock-ups;
corridors;
reception areas;
interrogation rooms;
and areas outside washrooms, while respecting privacy.
Cameras must have:
night vision;
audio and video capability;
sufficient resolution;
and reliable storage.
Recordings should ideally be preserved for eighteen months, or for the longest period technically available until systems are upgraded.
State and district oversight committees must supervise installation, maintenance and preservation.
Similar safeguards apply to central agencies conducting interrogation, including the CBI, NIA, Enforcement Directorate and other specified bodies.
Courts, human-rights bodies and investigating authorities may direct preservation or production of footage.
BNSS does not replace these constitutional directions; they continue to supplement statutory safeguards. ( )

Written arrest records and police diaries are important, but they are prepared by officials involved in the custody.
Where torture is alleged, audiovisual material may provide the only neutral account of:
the detainee’s physical condition;
the time of arrival;
persons present;
duration of questioning;
and conduct of officers.
The Court therefore rejected the idea that cameras were merely an administrative convenience.
They were a procedural safeguard supporting:
prevention;
investigation of complaints;
accountability;
and reliable adjudication.
Installation alone was insufficient.
A camera that is:
switched off;
incorrectly positioned;
unable to record at night;
or programmed to overwrite footage within days cannot serve its purpose.
Responsibility was placed upon governments and oversight committees to ensure:
uninterrupted power supply;
internet or data connectivity where necessary;
secure storage;
regular maintenance;
and prompt repair.
If a complaint of custodial violence is made, the relevant footage must be immediately preserved.
The Court also required public notice of CCTV coverage and mechanisms for raising complaints.
These directions sought to reduce dependence upon conflicting oral accounts between detainees and police officials.

The Supreme Court directed nationwide installation and maintenance of CCTV systems in police stations and offices of central investigating agencies.
It created institutional oversight and preservation obligations.
The judgment treats audiovisual recording as an essential practical safeguard against custodial abuse and investigative misconduct. ( )