Lockup footage sought on May 9 for February 23 was refused because 90 days had gone by; the Allahabad High Court says a lack of resources, space or infrastructure is no excuse for not preserving police station CCTV footage as the Supreme Court directed.
Allahabad: In a petition over lockup footage that was sought under the Right to Information Act and was neither preserved nor provided, the Allahabad High Court has asked the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ayodhya, to file a personal affidavit within one week, holding that police cannot plead a lack of infrastructure for not preserving police station CCTV footage in the manner the Supreme Court has directed [Praveen Kumar Dubey’s petition].
The Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai found that once the request was made within the 90-day period, the footage should have been preserved even though a copy was refused. The matter will be heard next on October 30, 2026.
A request made on May 9
On May 9, 2026, the petitioner, Praveen Kumar Dubey, applied under the Right to Information Act for the CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station, Ayodhya, for February 23, 2026. The Public Information Officer turned the request down, and a first appeal and a second appeal followed. In defending the refusal, the authorities said that the 90-day period for which such footage is kept had already expired. The petitioner then moved the High Court.
Preserve first, argue about disclosure later
The Bench held that the request had come within the 90 days. In that situation, it said, the footage ought to have been preserved even if the copy was refused, so that a later direction to disclose it would not be rendered futile. It found the authorities in breach of the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini, which it treated as binding on all police stations, and added that shortage of resources, space or infrastructure does not excuse non-compliance with that mandate.
The SSP, Ayodhya, must now explain in a personal affidavit, within one week, why the lockup footage was neither preserved nor given to the petitioner. At this stage the Court has recorded no finding against any individual officer.
The duty the Supreme Court placed on every police station
In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, decided in December 2020 by a Bench of Justice RF Nariman, Justice KM Joseph and Justice Aniruddha Bose, the Supreme Court told every police station to install CCTV cameras with night vision that record both audio and video. They are to cover entry and exit points, the main gate, lock-ups, corridors, the reception, the station hall and the rooms of the station officers, but not the inside of washrooms. The footage must be kept for 18 months. Where the available equipment cannot hold that much, the agency must acquire the longest-storing equipment available and, in any case, keep the footage for not less than one year.
Lucknow had been here before
The High Court has met the compliance problem earlier. In an order of February 4, 2026, a Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani at Lucknow objected to a police station’s CCTV cameras being reported non-functional in a case where footage had been sought. It saw a prima facie attempt to evade the duty to preserve and produce the footage, and directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into recurring CCTV malfunctions, frame guidelines on CCTV management and fix responsibility at the highest district level. That order also referred to a circular of the Director General of Police dated June 20, 2025.
Keeping two questions apart
For a person held in police custody, lockup footage is often the only neutral record of what happened. The order separates two questions that tend to get run together: whether a citizen is entitled to a copy under the RTI Act, and whether the police must keep the footage at all. On the second, the Court has made clear that the duty to preserve arises once a request is made within the retention period, and that a shortage of equipment or space cannot be pleaded against a Supreme Court mandate.
How the department accounts for the gap will become clear from the SSP’s affidavit and the October 30 hearing.
Case Title: Petition by Praveen Kumar Dubey concerning Cantt Police Station, Ayodhya (full cause title and case number not available at the time of writing)
Bench: Justice JJ Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Allahabad High Court
Next Hearing: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Not available at the time of writing.