Lucknow | The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has taken a serious view of the failure to preserve CCTV footage at PGI Police Station, Lucknow, and has directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to personally conduct an inquiry into the matter. The court said that citing a “technical glitch” cannot be accepted as a valid explanation, especially when binding Supreme Court guidelines mandate preservation of such footage.
The direction came while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Vivek Singh, who alleged that he was illegally detained by the police on November 7, 2025, without being informed of the grounds of arrest and was kept incommunicado for several days.
Court questions police version
The bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani noted that despite repeated directions, the police failed to place clear and consistent material before the court regarding the petitioner’s custody and movement. The court observed that the explanations offered by the police were contradictory and raised serious doubts.
In its order dated January 21, 2026, the court referred to a personal affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, which stated that the CCTV footage of Police Station PGI was not available due to a “technical glitch”. The affidavit also revealed that a preliminary inquiry into the missing footage was ordered only on January 13, 2026, much later than the alleged incident.
Supreme Court guidelines violated
Expressing concern, the High Court held that the non-preservation of CCTV footage amounted to a violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, which require CCTV footage in police stations to be preserved for a minimum prescribed period.
The bench also referred to a June 20, 2025 circular issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, which specifically directed that CCTV footage must be preserved for at least two to two-and-a-half months.
Rejecting the “technical glitch” explanation, the court observed that authorities cannot escape responsibility by merely shifting blame. It pointed out that the affidavit did not explain when the alleged glitch was detected, from which date the CCTV system stopped recording, or whether any backup system was in place.
‘Strange coincidence’ in mobile location data
The court also flagged a significant inconsistency emerging from the mobile location data placed on record. It noted that the petitioner’s phone location on November 9, 2025, after being switched on, was found within 200 metres of the place from where he was later shown to have been arrested by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, on November 10, 2025.
Describing this as a “strange coincidence”, the bench directed that this aspect must be specifically examined and explained by the Principal Secretary (Home).
State’s stand and court directions
Earlier, the State had maintained that Vivek Singh was not arrested in Lucknow and was instead taken into custody by the cyber crime police in Tamil Nadu. On this submission, the High Court allowed the Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore, to be impleaded as a respondent in the case.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the apparent non-compliance with Supreme Court directions, the High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, to personally inquire into the matter and file a detailed affidavit within three weeks explaining:
-
Why the CCTV footage was not preserved
-
Why there was a delay in initiating a preliminary inquiry
-
The discrepancies relating to the petitioner’s custody and location
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on February 18, 2026. It also warned that if the personal affidavit is not filed, the Principal Secretary (Home) will be required to appear in person along with all relevant records.
Case Title: Vivek Singh through his father Kamlesh Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Order Date: January 21, 2026
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani
