Full Breakdown
Allahabad High Court Mandates 24-Hour CCTV Surveillance in Police Stations
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Ruling and Immediate Orders
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev ordered on September 23, 2026 that CCTV systems in police stations operate continuously, 24 × 7, 365 days a year. Any failure must be recorded in the General Diary (GD) by the Station House Officer (SHO), noting the official informed, and the district Superintendent of Police (SP) must be notified for prompt restoration. A signed receipt from the detainee or next of kin is required upon release.
Background of the Dubey Habeas Corpus Petition
The directive stemmed from a habeas corpus petition by Raghvendra Dubey (through his wife Jyotsana Dubey) against the State of Uttar Pradesh. Dubey, owner of Ayaninfra Developers, was implicated in a sand-mining dispute dating to June 15 2021. An FIR was filed in Chitrakoot on May 9 2026 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.
Timeline of Key Events
- July 12 2026: Dubey was taken from a barber shop in Asansol to Sardhuwa police station, Chitrakoot.
- July 13 2026: CCTV review showed Dubey entered at 9:00 am, left with an officer at 10:19 am, and returned at 8:24 pm.
- September 23 2026: The High Court set aside Dubey’s arrest, ordered his release and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation for 24 hours of illegal detention.
Safeguards and Procedural Requirements
- Immediate GD entry for every person brought in when CCTV is non-functional.
- Record the exact time of CCTV failure, the official notified, and inform the district SP.
- Document release time and obtain a signed receipt from the detainee or next of kin.
- Presume illegal detention if these safeguards are not followed, per Section 119(1)(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
Data on CCTV Availability and Discrepancies
The station had five cameras; only two (entrance/exit and lock-up) provided usable footage. Footage from three interior cameras was missing or deleted. The court rejected the police claim of an IT error, calling it “false and mischievous” and concluding deliberate omission.
Official Judicial Findings
The bench found the arrest memo “grossly deficient,” noting it was witnessed only by police and lacked independent authentication. The GD recorded lock-up entry at 6:41 pm, while the arrest memo listed 3:30 pm, conflicting with CCTV showing Dubey’s return at 8:24 pm. The court held Dubey remained in constructive custody and that the irregularities violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the arrest was set aside, Dubey released, and Rs 10,000 awarded, to be recovered from the responsible party after inquiry.
Conflicting Records and Evidentiary Gaps
- Arrest memo: 3:30 pm arrest time.
- General Diary: 6:41 pm lock-up entry.
- CCTV: Dubey returns at 8:24 pm.
- Missing interior footage: three cameras unavailable without technical justification.
These gaps led the court to apply the adverse presumption under Section 119(g) of the BSA, favoring Dubey’s version.
Potential Impact on Police Practices
Mandating uninterrupted CCTV and detailed GD documentation during outages aims to curb evidence manipulation and illegal detention. The presumption provision creates a legal incentive for police to maintain functional recording systems and address failures promptly, likely influencing policing standards across Uttar Pradesh and other Indian jurisdictions.
Implementation Outlook
The order requires every police station to audit its CCTV infrastructure, establish real-time failure reporting protocols, and train SHO and SP personnel on the new GD requirements. Specific compliance monitoring mechanisms were not detailed, leaving oversight to future administrative directives from the state police hierarchy.
