The Deliberate Darkness, India’s Systemic Defiance of Supreme Court Orders on Police Transparency

The Deliberate Darkness, India’s Systemic Defiance of Supreme Court Orders on Police Transparency

In the architecture of a democratic state, the police station is a foundational pillar. It is the primary interface between the citizen and the state’s monopoly on force, a place where law is meant to be enforced, not subverted. Yet, in India, this very pillar is shrouded in a deliberate and systemic darkness, one that has persisted for years despite the highest court in the land repeatedly demanding illumination. The recent Supreme Court hearing on the state of policing in Rajasthan—where not a single interrogation room had a functioning CCTV camera—is not an isolated failure. It is a symptom of a deep-seated institutional malady, a mulish defiance that protects a culture of impunity and makes a mockery of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty.

This ongoing saga, stretching back to a clear and unequivocal Supreme Court order from 2018, reveals a troubling disconnect between the judiciary’s vision of a rights-based democracy and the executive’s resistance to accountability. The refusal to install cameras in the “heart of custodial functions” is more than bureaucratic inertia; it is a conscious choice to preserve zones of absolute power where the rule of law is suspended, and the vulnerable are at their most defenseless.

The Unheeded Mandate: A Timeline of Judicial Frustration

The Supreme Court’s 2018 directive was born from a profound understanding of the power dynamics within a police station. It was not a mere suggestion but a legally binding mandate, grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court, in its wisdom, recognized that this right is most fragile once a citizen passes through the gates of a police station.

The order was comprehensive. It required all states and Union Territories, as well as central investigation agencies like the CBI, NIA, ED, and NCB, to install CCTV cameras with night vision and audio recording capabilities at all critical points: entry and exit points, main gates, corridors, lobbies, reception areas, and most importantly, all lock-ups and interrogation rooms. The logic was both humane and pragmatic: the constant, unblinking eye of a camera would serve as a potent deterrent against abuse, while the recorded footage would provide an impartial witness for establishing facts in case of any dispute or allegation of misconduct.

Yet, what followed was a masterclass in systemic evasion. States responded with a litany of non-committal affidavits, citing everything from lack of funds to logistical hurdles. In 2020, the court, growing increasingly impatient, fortified its order. It directed that the footage from these cameras must be preserved for a minimum of 18 months to ensure that evidence would be available for any subsequent inquiry. It also recommended the formation of independent oversight committees and human rights courts to monitor compliance and investigate complaints.

By 2021, the court’s frustration was palpable, noting that “nothing substantial has been done.” Now, in 2025, the situation in Rajasthan—a state that reported 11 custodial deaths—lays bare the stark reality of this defiance. The state’s admission that its interrogation rooms remain unwatched is a brazen confession of non-compliance, signaling that the authority of the Supreme Court can be ignored with impunity.

The Human Cost: When Darkness Becomes a Death Sentence

The absence of a functioning CCTV camera is not an administrative shortcoming; it is a matter of life and death. Statistics from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) indicate over 700 custodial deaths between 2017 and 2022, though many human rights activists believe the actual number is significantly higher, as many cases go unreported.

Behind these numbers are harrowing stories of brutal violence, the most chilling of which is the Sathankulam case from Tamil Nadu in June 2020. P. Jeyaraj and his son, J. Bennix, were arrested for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown rules. What followed was a nightmare of torture and humiliation within the confines of the Sathankulam police station. They were beaten mercilessly, leading to their tragic deaths. There was no CCTV footage to document their final hours, no impartial record of the brutality they endured. There were only the silent walls of the police station and the testimonies of those who saw their bloodied bodies. The case sparked national outrage, but without video evidence, the fight for justice became exponentially harder, relying on witness courage in the face of immense pressure.

As activist Vrinda Grover starkly puts it, “The lack of CCTVs is not an accident, it is a design that allows impunity.” This design ensures that allegations of torture, extortion, or coercion remain in the realm of “their word against ours.” Without objective evidence, victims and their families are left to navigate a legal system that is often biased in favor of the custodial authority. The camera, in this context, is not just a piece of technology; it is a shield for the innocent, a guardian of truth, and the only witness that cannot be intimidated.

The Anatomy of Resistance: Why the System Fears Transparency

The persistent refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders unveils a deep-seated malaise within India’s law enforcement architecture. The resistance is multifaceted and speaks to a system that is fundamentally uneasy with accountability.

1. The Colonial Legacy: The Indian police system continues to operate under the framework of the Police Act of 1861, a colonial-era legislation designed for control and subjugation, not service and public trust. This inherited culture prioritizes the extraction of confessions over scientific investigation and wields fear as a primary tool. The introduction of transparency in interrogation rooms directly threatens this entrenched power dynamic. It shifts the balance from unchecked authority to accountable process.

2. A Culture of Impunity: As former police official and reform champion Prakash Singh notes, “When the Supreme Court orders something and that order is ignored, it reflects a culture of impunity.” This impunity is often politically sanctioned. Politicians and senior police officials may see the opaque police station as a useful tool for settling scores, suppressing dissent, or extracting rents. Installing cameras would remove this utility, creating a system that is less pliable to political and corrupt influences.

3. The Irony of Technological Evasion: This resistance exists in stark contrast to the Indian state’s enthusiastic adoption of surveillance technology in other spheres. The government has invested billions in creating a vast digital infrastructure, from Aadhaar to smart cities, complete with AI-driven facial recognition at airports and extensive public space surveillance. The excuse of a lack of funds or technical know-how for installing simple CCTV systems in police stations is, therefore, not just weak but laughably transparent. It reveals that the issue is not capability, but will.

The Way Forward: Beyond Judicial Admonishment

The Supreme Court’s repeated hearings and stern observations are necessary, but they are clearly insufficient to breach this wall of resistance. A multi-pronged strategy is required to translate judicial mandate into on-ground reality.

1. Contempt Proceedings and Personal Accountability: The court must move beyond expressing disappointment and initiate contempt proceedings against the responsible senior officials and political executives in states that are in blatant non-compliance. Holding individuals personally accountable, with the threat of fines or imprisonment, is a language that bureaucracies understand far better than general advisories.

2. Empowering Independent Oversight: The court’s 2020 suggestion for independent oversight committees must be made mandatory. These committees, comprising retired judges, civil society members, and human rights experts, should be granted the power to conduct random, unannounced inspections of police stations, audit CCTV footage, and report directly to the High Courts.

3. Linking Funding to Compliance: The Union Government can play a pivotal role by linking central police modernization funds and other financial assistance to states to verifiable proof of full compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders on CCTVs. Economic incentives can often succeed where legal directives fail.

4. Civil Society and Media Vigilance: Ultimately, the most sustained pressure must come from the public. The media and civil society organizations must treat this not as a one-off news item but as an ongoing campaign. They should file RTI applications to ascertain the status of installations, report on non-compliant districts, and keep the spotlight on this critical issue. As the article poignantly asks, the question is not whether India will install cameras, but whether Indians will demand their right to ‘see’.

A Moral and Constitutional Imperative

The darkness in India’s interrogation rooms is a stain on the nation’s democratic conscience. It is a space where the social contract between the citizen and the state is nullified. Every moment this darkness persists, it enables torture, facilitates corruption, and erodes public trust. The installation of CCTVs is a minimal, non-negotiable first step towards building a professional, humane, and accountable police force.

As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud aptly stated, these cameras are a “shield for the innocent” and a “deterrent for the guilty.” They are not an intrusion but an affirmation of the rule of law. The continued defiance by enforcement setups is not just an act of disobedience against the Supreme Court; it is a betrayal of the people they are sworn to protect and the Constitution they are duty-bound to uphold. Until the light is switched on in every lock-up and interrogation room in the country, the promise of justice for every Indian remains, quite literally, in the dark.

Q&A: Shedding Light on Police Station Transparency

Q1: What was the core of the Supreme Court’s 2018 order regarding police stations?
A1: In 2018, the Supreme Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with night vision and audio recording capabilities in all police stations and investigation agencies across India. The order specifically required coverage of entry/exit points, corridors, reception areas, lock-ups, and most critically, all interrogation rooms. The ruling was based on Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), aiming to deter custodial abuse and provide objective evidence in case of disputes.

Q2: Why is the focus specifically on interrogation rooms and lock-ups?
A2: Interrogation rooms and lock-ups are the sites of maximum vulnerability for a citizen in police custody. They are isolated spaces where power dynamics are most extreme, and the risk of torture, coercion, and inhuman treatment is highest. By mandating cameras specifically in these areas, the Supreme Court sought to protect citizens at their most defenseless and to eliminate the “opaque zones” where human rights abuses most frequently occur.

Q3: What reasons do states give for non-compliance, and how valid are they?
A3: States have commonly cited a lack of funds, bureaucratic red tape, and logistical challenges like poor internet connectivity in remote areas. However, these excuses ring hollow for several reasons. The technology required is relatively inexpensive and widely available. Furthermore, the state has simultaneously invested billions in sophisticated surveillance projects for public spaces and digital governance, demonstrating that the failure is one of political and administrative will, not capability.

Q4: How does this non-compliance connect to broader issues of police reform in India?
A4: The refusal to install CCTVs is a symptom of a deeper resistance to modernizing a colonial-era policing system. The Indian Police Act of 1861 fostered a culture of impunity and control. Transparency threatens this entrenched culture by making officials accountable for their actions. This specific issue is therefore a key battleground in the larger war for police reforms, which includes demands for greater operational autonomy, improved infrastructure, and a shift from a “force” to a “service” mentality.

Q5: What can be done to ensure these orders are finally implemented?
A5: Ensuring implementation requires moving beyond judicial warnings to concrete actions:

• Contempt Proceedings: The Supreme Court must hold specific senior officials and political executives in non-compliant states in contempt, with tangible penalties.

• Independent Oversight: Mandating powerful, independent state-level oversight committees with the authority to conduct surprise inspections and audit footage.

• Financial Leverage: The central government should link police modernization funds to verified compliance with the CCTV orders.

• Public Pressure: Sustained advocacy by civil society, media investigations, and the use of RTI laws to maintain public focus and demand accountability from elected representatives.