Today, On 25th November, Supreme Court declared that custodial violence and deaths are a blot on the justice system, stressing that the country will no longer tolerate such brutality. The Bench warned that accountability is essential to protect citizens’ rights and restore public trust.
The Supreme Court, described custodial violence and deaths as a blot on the system, emphasizing that such occurrences will not be tolerated in the country.
The court was addressing a suo motu case regarding the lack of functioning CCTV cameras in police stations.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that there had been 11 reported deaths in police custody in Rajasthan over the previous eight months.
The bench stated,
“Now this country will not tolerate this. This is a blot on the system. You can’t have deaths in custody,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that there can be no justification for custodial deaths. The bench also inquired why the Centre had not submitted a compliance affidavit regarding the matter.
Justice Nath pressed,
“The Union is taking this court very lightly. Why?”
Mehta clarified that he was not representing in the suo motu case but asserted that no one should take the court lightly. He committed to filing the compliance affidavit within three weeks.
In September, the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of a media report indicating that 11 individuals died in police custody in Rajasthan during the first eight months of 2025, with seven of these incidents occurring in the Udaipur division.
In a separate ruling from 2018, the court had mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to combat human rights violations.
During the Tuesday hearing, submissions were made by senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, who is acting as amicus curiae in a related case where the Supreme Court had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of various investigating agencies, including the CBI and the NIA, in December 2020.
Dave informed the bench about a report he filed regarding that case.
The bench inquired,
“On the last date, we had made certain specific queries from all the states and Union Territories (UTs). Have they responded?”
It was indicated that only 11 states had submitted their compliance affidavits in the suo motu case, while many states had failed to comply in the earlier case as well.
The bench acknowledged that Madhya Pradesh had provided a positive response, stating that every police station and outpost in the state is linked to a centralized workstation at the district control room, describing it as “something remarkable.”
Dave noted that CCTVs had been installed in only three central probe agencies, while the others had not yet complied with the Supreme Court’s directive. Mehta commented that while the court’s ruling must be adhered to, having CCTV footage in police stations could potentially hinder investigations.
The bench remarked that in the U.S., live streaming of such footage is a norm.
The solicitor general mentioned there had been a suggestion from one bench to consider encouraging industrialists to invest in private jails as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts. The bench responded by affirming that it is already looking into matters regarding open-air prisons.
Dave raised concerns about the absence of budgetary provisions for installing CCTVs in the three central agencies.
The bench observed,
“We find that only 11 states have filed their compliance affidavits in the suo motu writ petition. The remaining states and Union Territories have not filed their compliance affidavits, which includes the Union of India as well,”
The court granted three weeks for the states and UTs that have not submitted their compliance affidavits to do so and scheduled the next hearing for December 16. If the affidavits are not submitted by that date, the principal secretary from the respective home departments must appear before the court to explain the lack of compliance.
Mehta stated that the Union Home Secretary is not involved in this process, as no police station falls under their jurisdiction. The bench reminded that its earlier directive pertained to central investigative agencies. It noted that if compliance affidavits remain unfiled, the directors of the central agencies might need to appear in court.
The bench requested Dave to assist as amicus curiae in the suo motu case as well. On September 15, the court had raised concerns about oversight and suggested the possibility of a control room for monitoring CCTV feeds at police stations without human intervention.
Earlier, in December 2020, the Supreme Court had mandated that states and UTs ensure the installation of CCTV cameras at all police stations, including at entry and exit points, main gates, lock-ups, corridors, lobbies, and outside lock-up rooms to ensure comprehensive coverage.