Why all police stations must have functional CCTV cameras     

It should come as little or no surprise that the Centre and most states have no information about the number of CCTV cameras installed in police stations. The Supreme Court in 2015 had directed the Centre, states and Union Territories to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in police stations and also in agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, NIA, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence-- in short in all agencies which have power to arrest people.

The direction was reiterated by the court in December 2020. That the Centre and the states have not taken the direction seriously is again typical. The court’s direction was given to protect the accused and witnesses in the wake of widespread complaints that they are routinely intimidated, coerced and even tortured into giving statements dictated by the investigators.

But six years after the first direction was issued, the Centre this week sought more time to reply. In December the Centre and the states had come up with the excuse that they didn’t have the information. Again, not surprisingly, the Centre this week informed the apex court that the case should be adjourned because of ‘ramifications’. The bench responded by saying, “We are not concerned about the ramifications”.

While it is no rocket science to guess that the Centre would come up with arguments that CCTV cameras would compromise the ability and integrity of investigations—it may even cite the now ubiquitous national security argument—the fact remains that CCTV cameras in police stations have in many countries instilled confidence among people and checked unprofessional behaviour of the police. In some countries, policemen are even required to put on body cameras that record their movements and real time conversations on duty to check their response.

Following persistent complaints that people are abused at police stations, threatened and insulted with caste slurs, the oversight is clearly necessary. Very often witnesses and the accused are summoned to police stations and the agencies and kept waiting for long hours with no interrogation taking place. Activists, students and the innocent have complained that they were coerced into giving false statements. If such conduct does not compromise integrity of investigations, what does?

Governments, so squeamish about installing cameras in police stations, have enthusiastically installed CCTV cameras in public places to enhance public security. It will, however, come as no surprise if the Centre and the states have no information of how the footage is monitored, stored and used. Indeed, governments may not even know how many are functional and how many have been replaced.

Worse, the Centre has not bothered to explain till now the several video clips which surfaced regularly during the last few years in the national capital in which policemen were seen deliberately destroying CCTV cameras. Such cameras in public places may undoubtedly have been useful in solving crimes and made the task of the police easier.

But there is nothing to suggest that crime has come down, obviously because there are socio-economic reasons triggering criminal activities which cannot be curbed by CCTV cameras. It is time for governments which swear by technology and do not mind putting people under the scanner, to learn to be under scrutiny.

Cameras alone may not serve the purpose fully though. Making it mandatory for the police to produce video statements of the accused and witnesses before and after the investigation could be even more useful in ensuring the integrity of investigations.