The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Directors-General of Police to put in place, within a month, a mechanism for immediate access to CCTV footage whenever a Warrant Officer appointed by the High Court makes a surprise visit to a police station in a habeas corpus matter.The directions by Justice Virinder Aggarwal came while disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a person through counsel Taqdeer Sidhu alleging illegal detention of his wife and daughter by police officials of a police station in Fazilka. The court ordered a fact-finding inquiry by Fazilka Chief Judicial Magistrate into the alleged detention of the woman and her daughter as well as the alleged detention of two others.The broader CCTV directions were issued after the Warrant Officer reported difficulty in obtaining the footage during the inspection of the police station. The report recorded that the SHO concerned stated that she did not possess the password and that the footage could be displayed only with the senior officers’ permission.Justice Aggarwal asserted: “The ordinary requirement of obtaining permission from superior officers or accessing the system through an officer who possesses the requisite password or credentials, though applicable in the normal course, cannot be permitted to operate as a procedural impediment to the immediate execution of a judicial warrant.”Referring to the importance of immediate CCTV access where a Warrant Officer was appointed to conduct an immediate inspection, Justice Aggarwal observed: “The possibility of the alleged detenue being shifted before or during such inspection cannot be ruled out.”Justice Aggarwal further held: “Timely access to CCTV footage may be crucial for objectively ascertaining the presence, movement or custody of the alleged detenue. Any avoidable delay in securing such material may, therefore, substantially impair the efficacy of the judicial process and the very purpose for which the Warrant Officer is appointed”.Justice Aggarwal then directed the Directors-General of Police to review and suitably modify or supplement their existing departmental procedures so as to provide a “specific, expeditious and readily accessible mechanism” for cases involving the sudden visit of a Warrant Officer in connection with a habeas corpus matter.Justice Aggarwal ordered that each district or appropriate territorial unit should also have a designated Nodal Officer available at all times to facilitate access to CCTV systems and recordings. The Bench also prescribed “a dedicated communication mechanism, including an official contact number and, wherever considered appropriate, an official WhatsApp number or email ID, through which the concerned SHO or police official, and where necessary the Warrant Officer, may immediately contact the designated Nodal Officer for securing access to the CCTV system and relevant recordings”.Justice Aggarwal made it clear that the mechanism was required to remain operational “at all times, including beyond normal office hours”. The Nodal Officer’s particulars were to be circulated to police stations and prominently displayed there. The DGPs were also directed to furnish to the High Court Registry, within one week of designation, an initial list containing the Nodal Officers’ names, designations and complete contact particulars.Laying down the procedure, Justice Aggarwal asserted: “Whenever a Warrant Officer arrives at a police station in execution of a habeas corpus warrant and requires access to CCTV footage relevant to the warrant, the SHO concerned, or in his/her absence, the police official authorised by the SHO or designated under the departmental protocol, shall forthwith activate the designated mechanism and facilitate immediate and unhindered access to the CCTV system and relevant recordings”.The Bench added the Nodal Officer would be required to arrange the password, login credentials or requisite technical access, if the official did not have the same without requiring the Warrant Officer to wait for the ordinary departmental chain of permissions or approvals.“Any deliberate refusal, obstruction, avoidable delay, non- production of relevant CCTV footage or withholding of material information by any police official, including on the ground of non- availability of the SHO or nodal officer, password or credentials, or non-functioning of the CCTV system, during the execution of a habeas corpus warrant, shall be viewed seriously,” Justice Aggarwal warned.The Bench clarified that the directions were supplementary to existing directions concerning CCTV systems in police establishments and were confined to the procedural difficulty of obtaining immediate access to CCTV systems and relevant recordings during execution of habeas corpus warrants. These did not replace the existing departmental arrangements governing CCTV systems.“These directions are intended only to facilitate the effective and expeditious execution of judicial warrants by the Warrant Officer in habeas corpus matters and the timely preservation and availability of relevant CCTV footage, and shall not be construed as conferring upon a Warrant Officer any authority beyond the terms and scope of the warrant issued by this Court,” the Bench concluded.The petition was disposed of after the alleged detainees returned home and the immediate object of the habeas corpus proceedings—tracing them and securing their release—no longer survived. The fact-finding inquiry, however, was directed to proceed independently and in accordance with law.