Court emphasizes swift judicial scrutiny and mandates police protocol reforms to ensure unhindered CCTV access during habeas corpus proceedings
In a significant judgment delivered on August 27, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed allegations of illegal detention of a petitioner’s wife and daughter by police officials at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka. The Court, presided over by Justice Virinder Aggarwal, issued comprehensive directions to ensure a transparent and expeditious fact-finding inquiry while simultaneously mandating reforms in police procedures relating to CCTV footage access during habeas corpus warrant executions.
The case arose when Lal Chand, the petitioner, alleged that his wife, Joginder Kaur, and daughter, Mamta Kamboj, were forcibly taken from a relative’s house by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Amir Khas and other police officials on August 21, 2026, without any disclosed reason. Despite repeated requests for their release by local respected persons, the alleged detenues were not freed, prompting Lal Chand to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking their release through a habeas corpus writ.
Responding promptly, the Court appointed a Warrant Officer to conduct a surprise inspection of the police station on the evening of August 22, 2026. The Warrant Officer’s report revealed that the alleged detenues were not found at the police station during the inspection. However, this did not settle the matter. The petitioner and four respectable local witnesses provided written statements confirming they had witnessed the forcible pickup of the alleged detenues and their initial presence at the police station. Moreover, the petitioner’s brother, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was also reportedly detained briefly at the police station. These facts indicated potential unlawful detention and warranted further inquiry.
A critical issue raised during the inspection was the SHO’s refusal to immediately produce CCTV footage from the police station covering the period from August 21 to August 22, citing lack of password and requirement of senior officers’ permission. The Court recognized that withholding or delaying access to such footage during the execution of a habeas corpus warrant could undermine the purpose of judicial intervention and potentially allow tampering or overwriting of evidence.
The High Court therefore directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, to conduct an expeditious fact-finding inquiry within 15 days. The inquiry is to include recording statements from all relevant parties and examining preserved original CCTV footage from the police station and, if available, the official residential quarters where the alleged detenues were shifted. The SHO was ordered to preserve the footage immediately, prohibiting deletion or alteration, and to produce it before the Magistrate for examination.
Significantly, the Court also issued forward-looking general directions to address procedural difficulties in accessing CCTV footage during habeas corpus warrant execution. It recognized that existing police protocols requiring senior officers’ permission and password access posed an obstacle to the effective and timely inspection by Warrant Officers appointed by courts. To remedy this, the Court mandated that the respective Directors General of Police must review and modify departmental procedures within one month to establish a specific, expeditious mechanism for immediate access to CCTV footage in habeas corpus cases.
Key features of the mandated protocol include:
These directions supplement existing Supreme Court mandates on the installation and maintenance of CCTV systems in police stations, focusing specifically on ensuring judicial warrants’ effective execution and timely preservation of crucial evidence.
While the Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the alleged detenues had returned home, it emphasized that no final opinion was expressed on the culpability of any party. The Magistrate’s inquiry is expected to objectively verify the competing claims and, if illegal detention is established, recommend appropriate legal action including FIR registration against responsible officials.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring police accountability through transparent and prompt judicial scrutiny. It also highlights the critical role of technological evidence such as CCTV footage in protecting human rights and strengthening the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
The court addressed the issue of alleged illegal detention and emphasized the need for a fact-finding inquiry by an independent judicial authority. Directions were also issued for preserving CCTV footage and modifying departmental protocols to ensure immediate access to CCTV recordings during habeas corpus proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226.
Lal Chand v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971967
