Police Cannot Deny CCTV Access on Pretext of Password or Prior Permission: Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues Comprehensive Directions for Habeas Corpus Inspections
Case Name: Lal Chand v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 August 2026
Citation: CRWP-10240-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that ordinary departmental requirements concerning passwords, technical credentials or prior approval from superior officers cannot obstruct or delay a court-appointed Warrant Officer’s access to CCTV footage during the execution of a habeas corpus warrant. Since surprise inspection is intended to ascertain whether a person is being illegally detained, delayed access may defeat the judicial process by enabling the detenue to be shifted or the footage to be overwritten, deleted or rendered unavailable. The Court consequently directed the respective Directors General of Police to modify their existing CCTV-access protocols within one month and establish an expeditious, round-the-clock mechanism for providing immediate access to relevant footage during habeas corpus inspections.
Summary: The petitioner, Lal Chand, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his wife, Joginder Kaur, and daughter, Mamta Kamboj, alleging that they had been forcibly picked up and illegally detained by the SHO and other officials of Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka.
On 22 August 2026, the High Court appointed a Warrant Officer to inspect the police station and any other place identified by the petitioner. When the inspection was conducted, the two alleged detenues were not found inside the police station. However, four persons from the locality supported the petitioner’s allegation that they had witnessed the women being taken away by the SHO and the police party. The report also recorded allegations concerning the detention of Pal Chand, the petitioner’s brother and himself an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Punjab Police, and Gurinder Singh, both of whom were subsequently released.
During the inspection, the Warrant Officer sought CCTV footage of the police station for the relevant period. The SHO declined to provide immediate access on the ground that she did not possess the password and that permission from senior officers was required. The petitioner subsequently informed the Warrant Officer that his wife and daughter had been dropped on the main road of their village on 23 August 2026 and alleged that, before the inspection, they had been shifted to the official residential quarters at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad.
The High Court observed that the absence of the alleged detenues from the police station at the precise time of inspection did not conclude the matter. The supporting witness statements, the alleged detention of two other persons and the refusal to provide immediate CCTV access raised circumstances requiring independent verification. At the same time, the Court declined to record a conclusive finding of illegal detention without examining the competing versions, CCTV recordings and statements of the persons concerned.
The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, to conduct a fact-finding inquiry, preferably within 15 days, into the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner’s wife and daughter as well as Pal Chand and Gurinder Singh. The SHO and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, were ordered to preserve the original CCTV footage of Police Station Amir Khas from 21 to 23 August 2026 and ensure that it was not deleted, overwritten, altered or otherwise interfered with. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was also authorised to examine the available CCTV footage of the official quarters at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad.
The Court further directed that if the inquiry establishes illegal detention by the SHO or any other police official, the Chief Judicial Magistrate must take appropriate action in accordance with law, including ensuring registration of an FIR or criminal case against the officials found responsible, subject to the applicable legal procedure.
Addressing the broader procedural failure exposed by the case, the Court relied upon the principles underlying Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, and the Supreme Court’s continuing proceedings in In Re: Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2025. It directed the respective Directors General of Police to supplement their departmental CCTV protocols by designating nodal officers, establishing dedicated communication channels operational beyond ordinary office hours, displaying their contact details at every police station and ensuring immediate access whenever a Warrant Officer executes a habeas corpus warrant.
The Court cautioned that deliberate refusal, obstruction, avoidable delay or withholding of CCTV footage—including excuses based on unavailable passwords, absent officers or non-functional systems—would be viewed seriously and could invite departmental as well as legal action.
Decision: The habeas corpus petition was disposed of because the petitioner’s wife and daughter had returned home and the immediate relief of tracing and securing their release no longer survived. Nevertheless, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, was directed to conduct an independent fact-finding inquiry and submit a report to the High Court. Immediate preservation of the relevant CCTV footage was ordered, and statewide institutional directions were issued for creating a time-bound mechanism enabling Warrant Officers to obtain immediate and unhindered access to CCTV systems during habeas corpus inspections. No final finding regarding the culpability of any police official was recorded.