Over 100 CCTV Cameras Non-Functional in Meghalaya Police Stations, Including Shillong: Accountability Gaps Persist Despite Supreme Court Mandate
More than a year after official sources revealed that the vast majority of CCTV cameras installed in Meghalaya’s police stations and outposts were non-functional, the problem continues to raise serious questions about compliance with Supreme Court directions, police accountability, and the effectiveness of surveillance infrastructure in the state capital and beyond. Official figures from mid-2025 indicated that only 14 of the state’s 82 police stations and outposts had working CCTV systems, leaving the bulk of the network inactive. With at least seven cameras typically installed in each station following apex court orders, the number of non-functional units comfortably exceeds 100 and likely runs into several hundred statewide. Shillong, as the state capital and headquarters of key police formations, sits at the centre of this concern.
The cameras were installed in response to clear directives from the Supreme Court in the landmark Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh case (2020). That judgment, building on earlier rulings such as those in Shafhi Mohammad and D.K. Basu, mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with audio and night-vision capabilities in every police station across the country. The Court specified coverage of critical areas including entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, the inspector’s room, and spaces outside washrooms, ensuring that no part of the premises remained uncovered. The objective was straightforward and constitutionally grounded: to deter custodial violence, protect the fundamental rights of persons in police custody under Article 21, create an objective record of events inside stations, and strengthen public confidence in the justice system. States were required to file detailed compliance affidavits covering the number of stations, cameras installed, their positioning, operational status, recording capacity, and storage duration. Oversight committees at the state and district levels were also to be constituted, with Station House Officers made responsible for day-to-day functionality and maintenance.
In Meghalaya, the initial installation phase appears to have taken place. Officials confirmed that a minimum of seven cameras had been put up in each police station. Yet by June 2025, the systems had largely fallen into disrepair. Sources attributed the failures primarily to lightning strikes, a recurring challenge in the state’s hilly and monsoon-prone terrain. Interestingly, other electrical and electronic equipment such as wireless sets continued to function after the same incidents, prompting questions about the quality of installation, protective measures such as surge protectors, and the adequacy of ongoing maintenance protocols. The disparity suggested that the CCTV infrastructure may not have been engineered or serviced to the same resilience standards as other critical communication systems.
The consequences of widespread non-functionality are significant. Functional CCTV systems inside police stations serve multiple purposes. They act as a deterrent against potential misconduct, provide contemporaneous evidence in the event of complaints of custodial excesses, support internal accountability mechanisms, and assist in the investigation of incidents that occur on station premises. When cameras remain dead for prolonged periods, these safeguards evaporate. In a state that has witnessed occasional high-profile cases involving police stations, the absence of reliable visual records can complicate both departmental inquiries and court proceedings. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed not merely installation but continuous operational status and proper data retention. Footage that is never recorded or is lost due to system failure cannot serve its intended protective function.
The issue has not gone unnoticed by the judiciary. In June 2026, the Meghalaya High Court took up a public interest litigation filed by Kishan K. Nongkynrih concerning police accountability and transparency. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh directed the state government to submit a detailed affidavit within four weeks. The affidavit was required to cover the status of CCTV infrastructure across all police stations in Meghalaya, with specific attention to Laban Police Station in Shillong. The Court sought information on the number and precise locations of cameras, the extent of coverage within premises, and the duration for which footage is stored. The matter was listed for further hearing on 24 July 2026. This judicial intervention underscores that the earlier disclosures of large-scale non-functionality have not yet translated into comprehensive rectification or transparent reporting.
Ironically, while internal police station cameras have struggled, Meghalaya has made noticeable progress in expanding public CCTV coverage under the Smart City and Integrated Command and Control Centre initiatives. Hundreds of cameras have been installed at junctions, commercial areas, and localities across Shillong, with further expansion planned for Tura, Jowai, and additional urban pockets. These systems are intended to deter street crime, monitor drug-related activity, and improve overall urban safety. Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma has publicly highlighted the installation of over 200 cameras in the first phase and the rollout of subsequent phases, emphasising coordination with local dorbar shnongs. The contrast is striking: significant resources and political attention are being devoted to outdoor surveillance even as the mandatory indoor systems inside police stations remain largely non-operational.
Several practical challenges explain the gap. Lightning protection and weather-proofing demand specialised equipment and regular inspection in a region with frequent electrical storms. Budgetary provisions for maintenance, spare parts, and trained technicians must be sustained over years rather than treated as one-time capital expenditure. Power reliability, especially in outlying stations, and the need for adequate data storage capacity add further layers of complexity. Without a robust institutional mechanism—periodic audits, clear responsibility assigned to SHOs, and independent oversight—systems inevitably degrade. National experience shows that many states face similar difficulties; the Supreme Court itself continues to monitor compliance through suo motu proceedings and amicus reports, repeatedly flagging both non-installation and non-functionality across the country.
Restoring functionality is not merely a technical or administrative task. It is a question of upholding the constitutional safeguards the Supreme Court sought to institutionalise. Functional cameras inside police stations protect both citizens and police personnel by creating an objective record that can clarify disputed events. They reduce the scope for allegations of misconduct that cannot be verified and strengthen the credibility of the force. In Shillong and across Meghalaya, where the government is simultaneously investing in modern public surveillance networks, aligning the police station systems with the same standards of reliability would demonstrate consistency in the approach to security and accountability.
The High Court’s demand for a comprehensive affidavit offers an opportunity for a transparent stocktaking. Once the state places accurate data on the record—how many cameras are currently operational, where the gaps lie, what the storage protocols are, and what timelines exist for repairs or replacements—targeted remedial measures can follow. Lightning-resistant installations, scheduled preventive maintenance, adequate budgetary allocation, and regular reporting to the oversight mechanisms envisaged by the Supreme Court would go a long way toward closing the gap that has persisted for years. Until then, the presence of more than a hundred non-functional cameras in Meghalaya’s police stations, including those in and around Shillong, remains a visible shortfall in the state’s compliance with binding judicial directions and a continuing vulnerability in its internal security architecture.
About The Author
