Meghalaya HC Flags Prima Facie Non-Compliance With Supreme Court's CCTV Mandate in Police Stations
Hundreds of CCTV cameras across Meghalaya police stations lie non-functional; the High Court finds the State's affidavit incomplete and directs a comprehensive account of installations, failures, and footage retention.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya, comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh, on 30 July 2026 recorded a prima facie finding of non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & ors, reported at (2021) 1 SCC 184, and the subsequent order of 27 January 2021 issued in that matter. The court was examining an affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Meghalaya that disclosed a large number of non-functional CCTV cameras at police stations across the State. Finding the affidavit inadequate, the bench directed the State to file a comprehensive affidavit with granular station-wise details, and also directed that the Union of India and five central investigative agencies be impleaded as respondents in PIL No. 7/2026.
The CCTV Compliance Picture Before the Court
The State filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Dr. S.R. Marak, MPS, dated 29 July 2026, pursuant to an earlier order of 18 June 2026. Annexed to the affidavit was a chart listing police stations where CCTV cameras had been installed and those where cameras were non-functional.
The numbers were stark. In East Garo Hills, Williamnagar, around 50 cameras were non-functional. In East Khasi Hills, Shillong, approximately 129 cameras were non-functional. The bench noted that the count of non-functional cameras appeared to be “huge in number” across the State.
The affidavit offered specific explanations for some failures. The CCTV cameras at Laban Police Station were reported non-functional after being struck by lightning. At several other stations, mechanical defects were cited. The Police Headquarters, Shillong, had written to the concerned firm on 9 March 2026, requesting a deputation of technicians for a comprehensive inspection and a detailed estimate for repair and restoration. However, the bench observed that till the date of hearing, there appeared to be no course correction and the issue had not been addressed seriously.
The Funding Proposal and Its Status
Paragraph 7 of the State's affidavit disclosed that Police Headquarters, Shillong, had submitted a proposal under the “Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernization of Police” (ASUMP) scheme for the financial year 2026–27. The proposal sought financial assistance of ₹25,24,34,500 for upgrading the existing CCTV surveillance system, installing additional cameras, and establishing a Centralised Dashboard Monitoring System.
The bench noted that the proposal was under consideration with the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and that the requisite funds had not yet been released. The court also pointed out that the affidavit did not disclose when exactly Police Headquarters had forwarded the proposal to the Central Government.
Why the Affidavit Was Found Insufficient
The bench held that the affidavit did not give the correct picture of the functional CCTV cameras. The court identified specific gaps: the affidavit did not state when cameras were installed at each police station; it did not specify how many were functional and how many were not; it did not say, for non-functional cameras, since when they had been non-functional; and it did not identify the exact spots of failure.
The court then situated the deficiency against the background of Paramvir Singh Saini. In the subsequent order of 27 January 2021 in that case, the Supreme Court had directed each State and Union Territory to file an affidavit within three weeks detailing what concrete steps had been taken towards financial and budgetary allocation so that the directions could be taken to their logical end. The Meghalaya bench found, prima facie, that those directions had not been complied with.
The Paramvir Singh Saini directions extended beyond State police. The Supreme Court had directed installation of CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the National Investigation Agency, the Enforcement Directorate, the Narcotic Control Bureau, the Department of Revenue Intelligence, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, and any other agency with the power to arrest. The directions also required CCTV footage to be preserved for a minimum period of not less than six months, so that a person whose human rights may have been violated could have the footage secured.
Additional Details the New Affidavit Must Contain
The bench directed that the comprehensive affidavit the State was required to file must also address: the budgetary allocation made for CCTV installation across all police stations as directed by the Supreme Court; how long CCTV footage is currently being stored, expressed in months; and the details of any annual maintenance contract in place.
Impleadment of Central Agencies
Because the Paramvir Singh Saini directions applied to central investigative agencies as well, the bench directed the petitioner's counsel to implead the Union of India, the CBI, the NIA, the Enforcement Directorate, the NCB, and the DRI as party respondents. The court directed that the amendment be carried out forthwith on the same day.
Dr. Mozika, learned DSGI, waived notice on behalf of the Union of India. The petitioner's counsel was further directed to serve the remaining central agencies by court notice as well as personal service and to file an affidavit of service before the next date.
Order
The matter was stood over to 20 August 2026. The State of Meghalaya was directed to file a comprehensive affidavit containing all the details described by the bench. The petitioner's counsel was directed to carry out the impleadment amendment on 30 July 2026 itself and to serve the newly added respondents, filing proof of service before the next hearing date.