Observing that lack of resources, space or infrastructure can’t be cited as an excuse for non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on installing CCTV cameras in police stations and preserving their footage for the stipulated period, the Allahabad high court has instructed the SSP, Ayodhya, to file a personal affidavit within a week, explaining why CCTV footage of the lock-up at Cantonment police station for February 23, 2026, was not preserved and provided to an applicant under the Right to Information Act.
Where recording equipment cannot support that duration, the authorities must procure equipment capable of retaining footage for the maximum possible period, which must not be less than one year. A division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the order on October 22 while hearing a writ petition filed by Praveen Kumar Dubey. The petitioner had sought the footage through an RTI application submitted on May 9, 2026. The bench also held that the SSP, Ayodhya, was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh (2021), which mandate the installation of CCTV systems in police stations and the preservation of recordings. The SC directions require CCTV footage to be preserved for 18 months. The court directed that its order be communicated to the SSP, Ayodhya, within 24 hours and listed the matter for October 30.
“The lack of resources, the lack of space or the lack of infrastructure is no answer to a general mandamus issued by the Supreme Court,” the bench observed.
After the public information officer denied the information, he pursued the first and second appeals. Had the footage been saved, any subsequent order by a higher forum directing its disclosure would not have rendered the exercise futile, the court observed. The authorities subsequently contended that the 90-day period for retaining the footage had expired. Rejecting this stand, the bench observed that once an application seeking CCTV footage had been made within the prescribed 90-day period, the footage ought to have been preserved, even if its copy was denied.
