Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that police authorities cannot rely on a lack of resources, space or infrastructure to justify non-compliance with binding directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning the installation of CCTV cameras and the preservation of surveillance footage in police stations. Emphasising the importance of accountability in police functioning and the effectiveness of judicial remedies, the Court observed that once a request for CCTV footage is made within the prescribed retention period, the authorities should preserve the relevant recording even if they subsequently decide to deny the applicant access to it.
The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai while considering a petition filed by Praveen Kumar Dubey. The petitioner had approached the High Court after the authorities refused to provide CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station in Ayodhya, relating to February 23, 2026. The information had been sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through an application submitted on May 9, 2026.
The controversy raised an important question concerning the distinction between refusing access to information and preserving the information itself. Even where a public authority considers that disclosure is not permissible under the applicable law, it does not necessarily follow that the authority can allow the relevant electronic evidence to be destroyed or overwritten while the refusal is being challenged before the appellate authorities.
The High Court took the view that preserving the footage would have ensured that a subsequent direction issued by an appellate authority or a constitutional court requiring its disclosure could still be implemented. Once the recording is lost, an order directing its production may become ineffective, thereby frustrating the very purpose of seeking judicial or administrative review.
The Court accordingly sought a personal affidavit from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ayodhya, requiring him to explain why the CCTV footage had not been preserved and furnished to the petitioner. The officer was directed to submit the affidavit within one week.
The proceedings also brought into focus the Supreme Court’s decision in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021), which laid down significant directions concerning CCTV surveillance in police stations and other offices of investigative agencies. Those directions were intended to strengthen institutional accountability, provide safeguards against custodial abuse and ensure that recorded material remains available when required for an investigation, complaint or judicial proceeding.
By examining the failure to preserve the requested recording against this legal framework, the Allahabad High Court underscored that compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions cannot be treated as optional or made dependent on administrative convenience. The matter is particularly significant because CCTV footage can constitute important contemporaneous evidence of events occurring within police premises, including circumstances surrounding detention and the treatment of persons in custody.
Arguments of the Parties:
The dispute before the Allahabad High Court arose after Praveen Kumar Dubey sought CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station, Ayodhya, for February 23, 2026. His application, filed on May 9, 2026, invoked the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the legal mechanism for obtaining the requested recording.
The petitioner approached the authorities seeking access to electronic material that could potentially establish what had occurred inside the police station lockup on the specified date. Since such footage is time-sensitive and is ordinarily subject to a defined retention period, obtaining it depended not only on the consideration of his RTI application but also on the authorities preserving the recording until the request and any subsequent challenge could be resolved.
After the Public Information Officer refused to provide the information, the petitioner pursued the statutory appellate remedies available under the RTI Act. He filed the first appeal and subsequently the second appeal. However, the authorities maintained that the prescribed period of 90 days had expired, taking the position that the footage was no longer available for disclosure.
The petitioner’s challenge before the High Court consequently concerned more than the initial refusal of information. It also raised the issue of whether the authorities could rely on the expiry of the retention period when the recording had been sought through an RTI application and the matter had subsequently been taken through the appellate process.
From the petitioner’s standpoint, the timing of the application was material. He had submitted the request on May 9, 2026, seeking footage dated February 23, 2026. The application was therefore made within 90 days of the date for which the recording was required. This circumstance was central to the Court’s consideration of whether the footage ought to have been preserved.
The petitioner’s case, as reflected in the Court’s observations, also raised the practical consequences of allowing CCTV recordings to disappear while a request for access remained under challenge. If the relevant recording is destroyed or overwritten before the competent authority or court decides whether it should be disclosed, the applicant may be left without any effective means of obtaining the evidence, even if the refusal is later found to be unsustainable.
The statutory appeal process would lose much of its practical value in such circumstances. A favourable decision directing disclosure cannot achieve its intended purpose if the public authority has allowed the material to become unavailable before the dispute is resolved. The petition thus brought the preservation of potentially relevant evidence into direct connection with the effectiveness of the right to seek information.
On the other side, the authorities’ stated position was that the 90-day period had expired. This was the basis relied upon to explain why the footage could not be provided. The dispute therefore required the Court to consider the legal significance of the passage of time and whether the authorities could treat the expiry of the ordinary retention period as a sufficient answer to the petitioner’s demand.
The respondents’ position, as described in the case summary, was not that the footage could lawfully be destroyed despite an express judicial preservation order. Rather, the authorities relied on the expiry of the retention period to explain the non-availability of the recording. The distinction matters because the Court’s concern was whether the authorities should have preserved the footage in the first place once the request had been made within the applicable period.
No detailed written submissions or additional grounds advanced by the State have been specified in the available case summary. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute to the respondents arguments concerning particular statutory exemptions, privacy concerns, national security or other grounds that are not reflected in the reported facts.
Nevertheless, the circumstances placed the authorities’ administrative explanation against the binding framework established by the Supreme Court. The question was not merely whether the equipment had continued to store the footage after the ordinary retention period. It was whether the authorities should have taken steps to preserve the particular recording after receiving a timely request, especially when the applicant proceeded to challenge the refusal through the prescribed legal channels.
The case also required a distinction between the right to receive information and the duty to maintain records. An RTI application may ultimately be rejected for reasons permitted by law, but the issue of disclosure is separate from the question of whether the information should remain available while the legality of that refusal is being examined.
This distinction formed the foundation of the High Court’s concern. Even assuming that the Public Information Officer considered disclosure impermissible or that the ordinary retention period was relevant, the authorities still needed to account for their compliance with the Supreme Court’s CCTV directions and explain why the recording had not been preserved.
The Court’s decision to require an affidavit from the SSP reflected the need for a specific explanation from the senior police officer responsible for the district-level administration. Rather than accepting the expiry of the retention period as a complete answer, the Bench sought to examine why the recording had not been preserved and whether the failure was consistent with the binding legal obligations governing police surveillance systems.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai emphasised that the absence of adequate resources, space or infrastructure cannot be accepted as a justification for disregarding a general mandamus issued by the Supreme Court. The Court’s observations reaffirmed the binding character of judicial directions and the obligation of public authorities to take the necessary administrative and technical measures to implement them.
The Bench considered the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021), which addressed the installation and functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations and other offices of investigative agencies. The Supreme Court issued directions intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and protect the rights of individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system.
CCTV surveillance in police stations serves an important evidentiary and protective function. Police premises are places where individuals may be detained, questioned or otherwise placed under the authority of law enforcement officials. Recordings from these premises can assist in establishing the sequence of events, verifying complaints and examining allegations concerning the conduct of police personnel.
The significance of surveillance footage is not limited to criminal investigations. It may also become relevant in departmental inquiries, proceedings before statutory authorities, constitutional litigation and applications seeking information under the RTI Act. Its evidentiary value, however, depends on the recording being retained and remaining accessible when a legitimate legal requirement arises.
In Paramvir Singh Saini, the Supreme Court prescribed requirements concerning CCTV systems and the preservation of recorded material. The directions addressed the need for cameras capable of recording audio and video, together with an appropriate retention arrangement. As reflected in the present case summary, the footage was required to be preserved for 18 months. Where the available equipment could not store recordings for that duration, the minimum preservation period was one year.
These requirements are designed to ensure that surveillance does not become merely symbolic. Installing cameras without retaining the resulting recordings for a meaningful period would substantially undermine their purpose. The existence of a camera may establish that surveillance equipment was installed, but it cannot assist an investigation or court if the relevant recording has already been erased or overwritten.
The Allahabad High Court considered the non-preservation of the requested footage against this background. It observed that the SSP, Ayodhya, was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions concerning the preservation of CCTV footage. The Court’s concern was that the authorities had allowed the recording to become unavailable even though the petitioner had sought it within the prescribed 90-day period.
A central aspect of the judgment was the Court’s distinction between refusing to provide a copy of footage and preserving the footage itself. These are legally different questions. An authority may be required to examine whether information can be disclosed under the RTI Act, including whether any applicable statutory exemption or other legal restriction affects access. However, a decision to refuse disclosure does not automatically justify the destruction or non-preservation of the underlying record.
The Court observed that once the application seeking CCTV footage had been made within the relevant 90-day period, the authorities ought to have preserved the recording, even if they ultimately denied the request for a copy. The application had placed the authorities on notice that the footage was being sought and could remain relevant to an ongoing information dispute.
Preserving the recording would have maintained the possibility of meaningful review by the appellate authorities or a court. If the applicant succeeded in challenging the refusal, the competent forum could then consider directing disclosure of material that continued to exist. By contrast, if the recording disappeared while the challenge was pending, even a favourable decision could be rendered practically ineffective.
The Bench’s reasoning thus recognised an important principle of effective legal remedies: a public authority should not allow the subject matter of a dispute to become unavailable in circumstances where its preservation is necessary to give effect to a possible subsequent order. The ability to challenge an administrative decision is of limited value if the evidence needed to implement the eventual decision has already been lost.
This principle is especially relevant to electronic records. Unlike documents maintained in a physical file, CCTV recordings may be automatically overwritten when storage systems reach their capacity. The absence of a deliberate act of destruction does not necessarily resolve the question of compliance. Where binding directions prescribe minimum retention periods, and a particular request makes the continued relevance of a recording apparent, authorities must examine what measures are necessary to ensure that the record remains available.
The Court’s observations also addressed the broader issue of administrative limitations. Police authorities cannot treat inadequate infrastructure or limited storage capacity as a complete answer to non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. Where the highest constitutional court has issued binding requirements, the relevant departments are expected to organise their resources and systems to comply with them.
The legal principle is particularly important because administrative convenience cannot override judicial mandates. Public authorities are expected to act within the framework of law, and compliance with binding court directions is an institutional obligation. A failure to make adequate arrangements may call for an explanation regarding the measures taken, the equipment available and the steps adopted to meet the prescribed standards.
The Court’s approach does not mean that every request for every electronic record must automatically result in indefinite preservation. The precise obligation depends on the applicable law, the nature of the record, the relevant retention requirements and the circumstances in which the request or dispute arises. In the present case, however, the Bench specifically emphasised that the footage ought to have been preserved because the application had been made within the prescribed 90-day period.
The case also highlights the relationship between the RTI Act and the preservation of public records. The Act provides a statutory mechanism through which eligible applicants can seek information held by public authorities, subject to its provisions and exemptions. The availability of first and second appeals is intended to provide a means of challenging refusals or inadequate responses.
For that process to remain meaningful, authorities must deal with requested information in a manner consistent with their other legal obligations. The RTI Act does not, by itself, establish that every requested record must be disclosed, nor does the mere filing of an application settle the question of access. Nevertheless, the existence of a dispute over disclosure cannot be treated as eliminating an independent obligation to preserve records under applicable rules or binding judicial directions.
The High Court’s observations are therefore significant beyond the immediate dispute. They underscore that transparency mechanisms and record-retention requirements must operate together. A decision about whether information may be released should not be confused with a decision about whether potentially relevant evidence may be allowed to disappear.
The Court further considered the practical importance of preserving the footage pending the outcome of the proceedings. If a higher forum subsequently directed the authorities to provide the recording, such an order would be futile if the material had already become unavailable. Preservation, therefore, was essential to protect the effectiveness of the appellate and judicial processes.
In view of these concerns, the Bench directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, to submit his own affidavit within one week. The affidavit must explain why the CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station had not been preserved and provided to the petitioner.
The direction requiring a personal affidavit is significant because it calls for an explanation from the senior police officer rather than permitting the issue to remain at the level of a general administrative response. It enables the Court to examine the circumstances surrounding the failure, the steps taken by the authorities and the reasons for non-compliance with the applicable directions.
The order, as described in the available summary, is a direction to explain the failure and does not establish that the SSP has already been found guilty of contempt or subjected to any final penalty. The affidavit is intended to assist the Court in assessing the matter further. The final consequences, if any, will depend on the Court’s subsequent consideration of the explanation and the record before it.
The proceedings consequently remain important not only for the petitioner but also for police administration more generally. They reinforce the need for police stations to maintain functioning surveillance systems, adopt appropriate data-retention practices and respond carefully when CCTV recordings are sought through statutory or judicial processes.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 30, 2026. The SSP’s affidavit is expected to provide the Court with an explanation of the circumstances in which the requested footage was not preserved. The subsequent proceedings will determine how the Court addresses the explanation and what further directions, if any, may be necessary.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court’s observations reaffirm that compliance with binding judicial directions cannot be made contingent on administrative convenience. Where CCTV footage is subject to prescribed preservation requirements and a timely request has been made, authorities must take their obligations seriously. The case underscores that accountability depends not merely on installing surveillance equipment but also on ensuring that recordings remain available when required for the administration of justice.