Supreme Court asks amicus curiae to meet States, UTs on Central funds for CCTVs in police stations

The Supreme Court, in an ongoing suo motu case on custodial torture and deaths, directed the amicus curiae to convene a meeting with representatives of the C...

What Happened

The Supreme Court, in an ongoing suo motu case on custodial torture and deaths, directed the amicus curiae to convene a meeting with representatives of the Centre, all States, and Union Territories to examine the utilisation of centrally provided funds for CCTV installation in police stations.
The case arose from the Court's suo motu cognisance of media reports of custodial deaths and the persistent non-installation or non-functionality of CCTV cameras in lock-up areas and interrogation rooms across police stations.
Funding for CCTV infrastructure is structured as: 100% central funding for Union Territories; 90:10 central-state split for hilly states; and 60:40 for remaining states — but multiple states have failed to utilise the allocated funds.
As of early 2026, only 11 states and UTs had submitted compliance affidavits; the Court noted that agencies such as the NIA and CBI also lacked dedicated budgets for CCTV infrastructure.
India recorded approximately 170 custodial deaths in a recent annual period, with annual figures over the past five years consistently crossing 175, data presented in the Lok Sabha showed.

Static Topic Bridges

Custodial Torture and Article 21 of the Constitution

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity. Custodial torture — physical or psychological harm inflicted while a person is in state custody — directly violates this right, as the state bears a duty of care over persons it detains.

The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) held that custodial torture is a direct violation of Article 21 and that the state is liable to pay compensation to victims or their families.
The Court further observed that rights under Article 21 do not diminish upon arrest — the "right to live with dignity" continues in custody.
Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) also applies: detainees must be informed of grounds of arrest, have access to a lawyer, and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Custodial torture has not been criminalised as a standalone offence under Indian law — India is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) but has not ratified it.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's CCTV mandate is an institutional mechanism to enforce the Article 21 duty of the state toward detainees — creating a technological deterrent and evidentiary record against custodial violence.

D.K. Basu Guidelines (1997) and Their Legacy

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down 11 binding guidelines for all cases of arrest and detention. These included requirements for police officers to wear name tags, prepare an arrest memo witnessed by a family member or independent witness, notify a family member or friend of the arrest, conduct a medical examination of the arrested person, and maintain a custody register.

The guidelines were issued under the Court's jurisdiction to issue directions to fill legislative gaps on fundamental rights enforcement.
Several guidelines were subsequently codified: Sections 41B, 41C, and 41D were inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Amendment Act of 2008.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 (which replaced CrPC), arrest safeguards are continued under Sections 35–37 and related provisions.
The CCTV mandate in the current suo motu case extends the D.K. Basu legacy into the surveillance-technology era.

Connection to this news: The CCTV order is a continuation and technological upgrade of the accountability infrastructure that D.K. Basu established — moving from procedural safeguards to real-time visual documentation of custody conditions.

Suo Motu Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Suo motu cognisance refers to the Supreme Court's power to take up a matter on its own initiative, without a formal petition, when it determines that a matter of public importance or constitutional significance demands judicial intervention. This power flows from Articles 32 (right to move the Supreme Court) read with the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 (power to make orders necessary for complete justice).

Suo motu cases are typically triggered by media reports, letters, or information brought to the Court's attention.
The Court appoints an amicus curiae (friend of the court) — a senior advocate who assists the Court in fact-finding and legal analysis without representing any party.
High Courts have a parallel power under Article 226 to take suo motu cognisance of fundamental rights violations within their jurisdiction.
Notable suo motu cases: on COVID-19 management, on oxygen supply during the second wave, and this case on custodial CCTV compliance.

Connection to this news: The directive to the amicus curiae to convene a meeting with States and UTs is a classic suo motu case mechanism — using an appointed officer of the court to gather information that the executive has failed to provide through normal channels.

Police Accountability and the Seventh Schedule

Under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, 'Police' is a State List subject (Entry 2, List II). This means state governments have primary legislative and administrative authority over their police forces, including the management and equipment of police stations. The Centre cannot directly mandate state police infrastructure.

Central funding for state police modernisation flows through the Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF) scheme and similar centrally sponsored schemes.
The CCTV fund allocation identified in this case is from such central schemes — the Centre provides money, but states control deployment and utilisation.
National Police Commission (1977–81) and subsequent reform reports (Padmanabhaiah Committee, 2000; Malimath Committee, 2003; Model Police Act, 2006) have recommended police accountability measures, including independent oversight mechanisms.
The Supreme Court's 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India issued binding directions on police reform, including the establishment of Police Complaints Authorities in every state — compliance with which has also been slow.

Connection to this news: The Centre-State funding gap — States receiving funds but not deploying CCTVs — reflects the broader structural tension in police accountability: the Centre can fund, the Court can direct, but implementation depends on state political will and administrative capacity.

Key Facts & Data

Custodial deaths in India: ~170 in recent annual data; annual figures over past five years crossing 175 (Lok Sabha data).
CCTV funding structure: 100% Centre for UTs; 90:10 (Centre:State) for hilly states; 60:40 for other states.
Compliance affidavits filed: only 11 states/UTs as of early 2026.
Amicus curiae: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave (assisting the Court in the suo motu case).
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Next hearing date: May 13, 2026.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): 11 binding guidelines for arrest and detention; codified in CrPC Sections 41B–41D (2008 amendment); continued under BNSS 2023.
India signed but has not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Police: Entry 2, List II (State List), Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Supreme Court's binding police reform directions, including Police Complaints Authorities.