The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a reality check on whether the CCTV monitoring systems — mandated by the Supreme Court — is functioning on the ground or remains confined to paper compliance in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has directed the State Level Oversight Committees (SLOCs) of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to place on record, through affidavit, comprehensive data relating to CCTV installation, storage compliance, and monitoring mechanisms. The Bench observed that the issue was of “vital significance” in light of binding directions of the Supreme Court mandating preservation of CCTV footage for a minimum period of six months.Examining the compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions concerning CCTV installation and preservation, Justice Bhardwaj observed: “I am of the opinion that the issue being of vital significance and the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for ensuring that CCTV cameras are not only installed but the CCTV footages are also stored for a minimum period of six months, it is apposite to call for a response from the SLOC not only from the State of Punjab but also from the State of Haryana as well as UT Chandigarh.”SLOC data, instructions and discrepancies soughtThe Supreme Court had passed a detailed order directing States and the centre to initiate steps for ensuring every police station across the country and all investigating agencies were having CCTV cameras. As a part of the process, the Bench had ordered the setting up of state and district level oversight committees, which would be responsible for making sure the CCTV cameras are procured, installed and functioned.The counsel appearing for the States of Punjab and Haryana, along with the Union Territory, sought time to place on record a comprehensive compilation of instructions issued by the Central Oversight Body (COB) and the SLOCs to District Level Oversight Committees (DLOCs), along with a detailed analysis of data collected over time.The counsel also undertook to place before the Bench a detailed analysis of the data collected by the SLOC “over a period of time from the date of being furnished by different DLOCs and as to what discrepancies/shortages have ever been noticed by them over a period of last five years”.Court directs affidavit from senior SLOC officerJustice Bhardwaj further directed that the requisite information be furnished through affidavit by an officer not below the rank of Member-Secretary of the SLOCs, and that advance copies be supplied to the Amicus Curiae. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 22.Amicus raises concerns over absence of COB instructions in public domainAppearing as Amicus Curiae, senior advocate Kshitij Sharma, along with advocate Gurpreet K Bhatti, referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of “Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” underlining the framework of COB, SLOCs and DLOCs.Amicus Sharma submitted that the COB was mandated to issue directions from time to time for implementation through SLOCs and DLOCs, but such instructions were not presently available in the public domain.“It is incomprehensible that no instructions or directions of any nature would have been issued by the Central Oversight Body during the period of eight years,” Sharma added. He further contended that there might exist significant gaps in the issuance and implementation of COB directions, necessitating a comprehensive disclosure of all such instructions issued from time to time, along with verification of actual compliance at field level.The Amicus also pointed to recurring litigation regarding CCTV footage preservation: “Every other day, people come to the Court asking for preservation of CCTV footages and the State regularly files affidavits, acknowledging that CCTV footages are not available or about dysfunctional CCTVs,” he added.He suggested that verification of State claims could be undertaken through SLOC-collected data to ensure authenticity and accountability.