The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 14, 2025) has asked the reason from the Rajasthan government in the suo motu case related to not installing CCTV cameras in police stations. The court asked the Rajasthan government why CCTV cameras have not been installed in the interrogation rooms of police stations.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that the interrogation room of the police station is the main place where CCTV cameras should be there. The court said that as per your affidavit, there is no camera in the interrogation room.
According to PTI report, the Supreme Court said that there will be cost in installing CCTV cameras but it is a question of human rights. The court has also asked the state government how it proposes to set up a monitoring system. On September 4, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of a media report which said that within eight months this year, 11 people had lost their lives in police custody in Rajasthan, out of which seven incidents took place in Udaipur division.
In 2018, the Supreme Court had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to stop human rights violations. During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench remarked why no agency could be involved in the monitoring process.
The court also heard arguments from senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who was appointed amicus curiae to assist the court in a separate case in which the Supreme Court had passed an order in December 2020. In that order, the Supreme Court had directed the Center to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of investigating agencies including CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and NIA.
Siddharth Dave told the bench that he has filed an updated report in this case. He also stressed that there is a need for a monitoring mechanism. The bench cited the affidavit filed by the Rajasthan government in the suo motu case and said that there are no CCTV cameras in the interrogation rooms of police stations. The court asked the Center and other states to file their reply on the report submitted by the amicus curiae and adjourned the hearing of the case till November 24.