Rajasthan HC Demands Answers on Inoperative Cameras at Ajmer Central Jail in Suo Motu Prison Case
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to explain why surveillance cameras at Ajmer Central Jail were found inoperative or hazy during a recent incident, and why the responsible officer failed to report the lapse.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma, took up its long-running suo motu matter on prison administration on 2 July 2026 and trained its focus on a specific incident at the Central Jail, Ajmer. The bench directed the State to place on record a current status report on jail administration, and separately sought an explanation of why surveillance cameras at the Ajmer facility were found inoperative or hazy during the incident and why the officer responsible for monitoring those cameras did not report the failure.
The Dispute Before the High Court
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012 is a suo motu proceeding before the Rajasthan High Court concerning jail administration across the State. It is listed alongside five connected writ petitions spanning the years 2008 to 2026, indicating that the court has been monitoring conditions of incarceration and prison management over an extended period.
At the 2 July 2026 hearing, the immediate trigger was a recent incident at the Central Jail, Ajmer. The precise nature of that incident is not detailed in the order, but the bench's directions make clear that the functioning — or rather the non-functioning — of the jail's camera surveillance system was central to what occurred.
The Surveillance Camera Failure and Officer Accountability
The bench's order identifies two distinct concerns arising from the Ajmer incident. The first is the condition of the cameras themselves: they were found to be either inoperative or producing hazy footage. The second is the conduct of the officer charged with maintaining a vigil on those cameras, who did not report the malfunction.
The court directed that a report be placed explaining both these failures. The framing of the direction — asking why the officer “did not report about the said incident” — signals that the bench views the oversight failure as a matter requiring individual accountability, not merely a systemic or infrastructural explanation.
Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State along with Ms. Shikha Sharma, Mr. Vishnu Dutt (Additional Advocate General), and others, submitted that a current status report on jail administration would be filed.
Role of the Amicus Curiae and the High Court's Own Counsel
The bench also called upon two other participants to contribute to the record. Counsel appearing for the High Court was directed to place the report relating to the Ajmer incident before the bench. The Amicus Curiae — appointed to assist the court in this suo motu matter — was directed to submit the report prepared after personally inspecting various stages of the jail, and the Additional Advocate General was asked to file a response to that report.
Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, appearing through video conference along with Ms. Gauri Jasana, represented the petitioner's side. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma also appeared before the bench.
The involvement of an Amicus Curiae who has conducted a personal inspection reflects the court's approach of gathering first-hand information rather than relying solely on government-filed affidavits in this long-pending suo motu proceeding.
Outcome
The bench passed three directions on 2 July 2026:
- The Additional Advocate General shall file a current status report on jail administration.
- Counsel for the High Court shall place on record the report concerning the recent incident at Ajmer Central Jail, including details of the inoperative or hazy cameras and the failure of the responsible officer to report the matter.
- The Amicus Curiae shall submit the report prepared after personally inspecting the various stages of the jail; the Additional Advocate General shall submit his response to that report.
All five connected writ petitions — D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11417/2008, 5463/2015, 17462/2017, 12416/2019, and 5997/2026 — along with the lead petition are listed for the next hearing on 28 July 2026.