The Bombay High Court has directed the Director General of Police to conduct a full review of CCTV systems across all police stations in Maharashtra, an order that has put state police authorities in an uncomfortable position. The directive emerged from a case that has drawn attention to how evidence preservation failures can leave citizens unable to substantiate allegations against law enforcement officials.
The matter came up during a hearing related to a case filed by Prashant Kokane, who alleged harassment by officials at Ghatkopar Police Station. The order was issued on July 15, 2026, by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad. The court's intervention signals growing judicial concern over whether police stations across the state are honoring earlier commitments made regarding surveillance infrastructure and data retention.
Kokane's situation illustrates the stakes involved in such disputes. He claimed police officials pressured him to withdraw his complaints regarding a bogus ration card and also initiated chapter proceedings against him without proper investigation. Chapter proceedings, typically invoked under provisions meant to prevent breaches of peace, can carry serious consequences for those against whom they are opened, making Kokane's allegation of improper initiation particularly weighty. To support his claims of harassment, he needed CCTV footage from March 17 to March 20, 2025, covering the period during which the alleged pressure and improper proceedings occurred.
Kokane formally requested preservation of that footage on April 15, 2025, but the police station simply did not act on that request. By the time the matter reached court, the footage was already gone. The explanation given was that Ghatkopar Police Station only retains CCTV recordings for six months, meaning the evidence Kokane needed to prove his own harassment had disappeared by the time any legal remedy could be pursued. This sequence of events — a timely written request followed by inaction and eventual loss of the recording — is precisely what has drawn the court's sharp scrutiny.
The case takes on added significance because it is not simply about a lapse in one station's record-keeping. The bench highlighted that the court had already issued directives back in 2022 regarding enhanced CCTV coverage and storage capacity, with a clear expectation that recordings should be preserved for at least 18 months. Ghatkopar station's apparent failure to comply with those earlier instructions is exactly what the bench expressed deep concern about during the hearing. Court noted that the state had earlier given assurances about extended storage capabilities, but those previous directives were apparently ignored, raising questions about whether compliance across the state's police infrastructure has been consistently monitored since 2022.
CCTV systems in police stations serve multiple purposes beyond routine security monitoring. They are widely regarded as a safeguard against custodial abuse, a tool for verifying complaints of misconduct, and a source of objective evidence in disputes between citizens and law enforcement. Courts across India have in the past emphasized the importance of functioning surveillance systems inside police premises precisely because they can independently corroborate or refute claims made by either side in a dispute, particularly in sensitive matters involving allegations of coercion or procedural irregularities.
The Director General of Police has now been ordered to report back to the court on the operational status of CCTV systems across all police stations statewide and on the measures taken to implement the 2022 guidelines on data retention. The next hearing is scheduled for August 10, 2026, when the court will evaluate the DGP's findings and determine whether corrective steps are being taken with sufficient seriousness.
What makes this case significant extends beyond the missing footage from a single police station; it points toward a larger pattern with implications for how ordinary citizens interact with the justice system. If a citizen formally requests preservation of evidence and a station takes no action, allowing that footage to disappear by default under a routine retention schedule, that outcome amounts to more than administrative negligence — it represents a serious gap in the accountability mechanisms meant to protect the public. In situations like Kokane's, where a person is already alleging police harassment, losing access to CCTV evidence leaves that individual in an especially vulnerable position, with denials from police on one side and no corroborating record on the other.
- The Bombay High Court has directed the DGP to assess the functioning of CCTV systems across police stations statewide.
- Ghatkopar Police Station's six-month retention period is under scrutiny after footage relevant to Kokane's case became unavailable.
- The court noted that earlier state assurances on extended storage capabilities from 2022, calling for at least 18 months of retention, were apparently ignored.
- The DGP must report findings before the next hearing on August 10, 2026.
Legal observers in the state are watching this development closely, given that the implications for police accountability across Maharashtra could be far reaching if the DGP's review results in genuine systemic changes rather than another round of assurances. Whether the August 10 hearing produces evidence of real compliance with retention standards or simply renews earlier promises remains an open question, one that will likely shape how future complainants approach cases dependent on institutional evidence held by the very authorities they are accusing.
