Paramvir singh saini case

Overview

Decided by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court (R.F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.) on 2 December 2020, this is the culminating order in a long line of custodial-rights cases beginning with D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

It directs the mandatory installation xof CCTV cameras in every police station in India, and in the offices of other agencies empowered to arrest and interrogate, together with a three-tier oversight mechanism to ensure compliance is actually monitored, not merely ordered.

Facts

  1. The matter arose out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3543 of 2020, itself arising from a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 22 November 2016 in CRWP No. 1245 of 2016.
  2. It built on the Court’s own earlier directions in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (guidelines against custodial torture), a subsequent CCTV-specific order in the same matter reported at (2015) 8 SCC 744, and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311, which had directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to constitute a Central Oversight Body (COB) to plan CCTV installation and videography of crime scenes.
  3. Despite these repeated directions, most States and Union Territories had failed to comply. By 24 November 2020, compliance affidavits or action-taken reports had been filed by only about 14 States and 2 Union Territories, and even these omitted basic details such as the number of functioning cameras, their exact locations, and the duration for which footage was preserved.
  4. The Court therefore impleaded all States and Union Territories and called for a clear, verified account of CCTV coverage and the status of oversight committees in every police station in the country.

Issue

(i) Whether the States and Union Territories had complied with the Court’s earlier directions on installing CCTV cameras in police stations; and (ii) what further, specific, and enforceable directions were necessary to secure functional CCTV coverage of police stations, together with effective oversight of the footage, so as to protect persons in custody from torture and custodial violence consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held

  1. CCTV cameras must be installed at every entry and exit point, the main gate, all lock-ups, corridors, the lobby and waiting areas, verandas, outside the lock-up room(s), the station hall, the front and back of the police station, outside washrooms, the Duty Officer’s room, and the rooms of the Inspector and Sub-Inspector, each equipped with night vision and audio-video recording capability.
  2. Footage must be preserved for a minimum period of 18 months; where a complaint concerns an incident within that period, the relevant footage must be preserved until the investigation into that complaint concludes.
  3. Similar CCTV systems must be installed in the offices of central investigating and enforcement agencies empowered to arrest and interrogate, including the CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, and DRI.
  4. A three-tier oversight structure was mandated: a Central Oversight Body (COB), set up by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, to oversee implementation for central agencies; a State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC) in every State and Union Territory, responsible for purchase, distribution, installation, funding, and addressing complaints escalated from the district level; and a District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) in every district, responsible for supervising and maintaining CCTVs at the station level, liaising with the Station House Officer (SHO), and reviewing footage to identify any human rights violations.
  5. The SHO of each police station was made personally responsible for the working, maintenance, and non-tampering of the CCTV system, with a duty to report any malfunction to the DLOC and to disclose whether the cameras were functioning during any particular arrest or interrogation.
  6. A person subjected to torture or injury in custody was recognised as entitled to lodge a complaint before the State or National Human Rights Commission, or the jurisdictional court, under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
  7. The Union of India and all States and Union Territories were directed to file compliance affidavits within six weeks, confirming constitution of the oversight bodies and the extent of CCTV coverage achieved.

Conclusion

Paramvir Singh Saini converts the general custodial-rights principles laid down in D.K. Basu into a concrete, enforceable infrastructure requirement, backed by continuous, multi-tier monitoring rather than a one-time direction left to executive discretion. Its significance lies precisely in closing the compliance gap that had persisted through the Shafhi Mohammad line of orders: by naming specific locations for cameras, fixing a storage period, and creating a standing committee structure with defined duties down to the level of the individual SHO, the Court converted a broad constitutional guarantee against custodial torture into an operational checklist that can be audited.

As subsequent compliance orders confirm (including status reviews as recent as 2025 in various High Courts and before the Supreme Court itself), the Court has continued to monitor implementation of this judgment in the years since, underscoring that Paramvir Singh Saini functions as a continuing mandamus rather than a closed chapter.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here)and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.