New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 4) initiated a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) after a newspaper report highlighted 11 custodial deaths over the last eight months, linking the issue to lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations.A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took cognisance of a report published in the Dainik Bhaskar to register the case.In its order initiating the Public Interest Litigation, titled ‘Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations’, the court stated, “Based on Dainik Bhaskar, we are directing for a suo motu public interest litigation… as it has been reported that there are 11 deaths in the last 7-8 months in the year 2025 in police custody.”This move revisits the apex court’s own 2020 judgment in which a bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and Aniruddha Bose had mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in every police station across the country. That comprehensive verdict had also directed the Union government to install surveillance systems in the offices of all central investigative agencies where interrogations are conducted, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, and the Enforcement Directorate.The 2020 judgment specified that all CCTV systems “must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage.” It also placed the responsibility on states and Union Territories to provide uninterrupted power and internet for these systems.A key provision of the ruling was to ensure that in cases of alleged custodial violence, Human Rights Courts could summon the CCTV footage for safekeeping to be used as evidence.However, enforcement of the verdict and its provisions has remained a challenge. Legal news website Bar and Bench noted in its report on the development that police departments have frequently hidden behind the excuse of missing footage or non-functional CCTV cameras when asked to produce evidence. The new PIL is expected to scrutinise the level of compliance by state and central authorities and compel them to adhere to the court’s five-year-old mandate.