Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Allahabad High Court Orders 24/7 CCTV Safeguards at Police Stations
The Allahabad High Court said police-station cameras must work all day and all year.
If a camera stops working, police must write down when it stopped and who was informed.
They must also tell the district police chief and record what is done to repair it.
While cameras are off, police must record when suspects arrive, leave, and are questioned.
A signed receipt must be collected when a suspect is released.
The case involved Raghvendra Dubey, who said police took him from Asansol to a police station in Chitrakoot.
The court found different times in the camera footage and police records.
It also found that footage from three indoor cameras was missing or deleted.
The court cancelled Dubey’s arrest and awarded him Rs 10,000 for illegal detention.
The Allahabad High Court ordered police-station CCTV systems to operate continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
When surveillance fails, the Station House Officer must record the failure, notifications, repairs, and all suspect movements and interrogation details in the General Diary.
The court ordered the district Superintendent of Police to be informed about CCTV failures and required signed receipts when suspects are released.
The court set aside Raghvendra Dubey’s arrest and awarded him Rs 10,000 for 24 hours of illegal detention.
CCTV timing discrepancies and missing interior footage conflicted with the arrest memo and General Diary, while the state cited an FIR and non-bailable warrants.
- Who
- The Allahabad High Court bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev heard a case involving Raghvendra Dubey.
- What
- The court mandated continuous police-station CCTV operation and safeguards during outages, while setting aside Dubey’s arrest and awarding compensation.
- When
- The order was dated September 23; the cited CCTV footage concerned July 13, 2026, and the report was published September 30.
- Where
- The case involved Sardhuwa police station in Chitrakoot; Dubey said he had been brought there from Asansol.
- Why
- The court cited a deficient arrest memo, conflicting custody times, and missing or deleted interior CCTV footage.
Petitioner’s account
State’s account
Basis of detention
Petitioner’s account
Raghvendra Dubey said he was illegally taken from Asansol to Sardhuwa police station over a sand-mining agreement dispute.
State’s account
The state argued that Dubey was arrested after an FIR was registered and non-bailable warrants were issued.
Police records and conduct
Petitioner’s account
The petitioner’s case highlighted conflicting CCTV and police-record timings, along with missing or deleted interior footage.
State’s account
The state’s account relied on the arrest being pursuant to warrants, while the court found the arrest memo grossly deficient and said police personnel appeared, prima facie, to have acted as recovery agents for the complainant.
- CCTV requirement
- Police-station CCTV systems must operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
- Failure reporting
- The Station House Officer must record the exact failure time and the official notified in writing in the General Diary.
- Senior notification
- The district Superintendent of Police must be informed when a CCTV system fails.
- Outage safeguards
- Police must record suspects’ entry, departure, and interrogation details in the General Diary and obtain a signed receipt upon release.
- Court remedy
- Raghvendra Dubey’s arrest was set aside, and he was awarded Rs 10,000 for 24 hours of illegal detention.
- Timing discrepancy
- CCTV showed entry at 9:00 AM, departure at 10:19 AM, and return at 8:24 PM; the arrest memo listed 3:30 PM and the General Diary recorded lock-up entry at 6:41 PM.
- Missing footage
- Interior footage from three cameras was missing or deleted.
