The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh police chief, declaring a state circular on preserving CCTV footage from police stations to be in prima facie contempt of a Supreme Court order. The court's strong remarks came to light during the hearing of a petition concerning alleged custodial assault and extortion in Unnao.
Court Questions DGP's "Logic," Seeks Chief Secretary's Response
In a significant order dated January 5, a division bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani expressed its astonishment at a circular issued by the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) on June 20, 2025. This circular directed police stations across the state to retain CCTV footage for a maximum of only two-and-a-half months.
This directive stands in stark contrast to a landmark Supreme Court order from December 2, 2020. The apex court had mandated that CCTV footage from police stations must be preserved for 18 months, with a minimum retention period of at least six months. The High Court explicitly stated it failed to "understand the logic" behind the DGP's circular, which it found to be contrary to the Supreme Court's directive.
Consequently, the court has now ordered the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit within three weeks, explaining the anomalies. The bench made it clear that if the affidavit is not filed, the Chief Secretary must appear in person before the court on the next hearing date, January 29.
Order Stems from Serious Unnao Custodial Allegations
The High Court's scrutiny of the DGP's circular emerged from a petition filed by a woman from Unnao. She accused personnel at the Kotwali police station of a series of grave offences including illegal detention, custodial assault, sexual harassment, extortion, and false implication in a theft case.
According to her petition, she and her family members were picked up and detained on August 5, 2025, without any arrest memo. She alleged that on the night of August 7, she was illegally confined in a lockup where obscene remarks were made against her. The petition further claimed that Rs 35,000 in cash and three mobile phones were seized from the detainees, and they were released only after a payment of Rs 10,000 was made to a sub-inspector.
Seeking justice, the petitioner had requested the court to order the preservation and production of original CCTV footage from the police station for the relevant dates.
SP's Helplessness Reveals Contradictory Circular
Following an earlier order in November 2025, the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Unnao was directed to file a personal affidavit and preserve the CCTV footage from August 5-8, 2025. In his response, the SP expressed helplessness in providing the video footage for the three specific days. He cited the DGP's circular of June 20, 2025, which limited storage to a maximum of two-and-a-half months, as the reason the footage was no longer available.
This admission brought the contradictory circular to the court's attention. The bench noted that the Unnao SP had, in his affidavit, "categorically admitted about there being some semblance of truth" in the allegations of police personnel demanding money. The court criticized the authorities for taking only a preliminary step of sending the accused personnel to the Police Lines, calling the response "cavalier and lackadaisical."
The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court's detailed 2020 order, which stated that if available recording equipment had lesser storage capacity, it was mandatory for governments to purchase systems that allow storage for the maximum period possible, and in any case, not below one year.
The petitioner's requests, which include a CBI or SIT probe, suspension of the accused officers, registration of an FIR, and compensation and security for her family, will be considered in subsequent hearings.
