Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court

"Interruptions on account of movement, signal loss, battery and storage, limitations of recording equipment, or security considerations during transit are inherent contingencies of road travel, and it would be unrealistic, and self-defeating of the safeguard itself, to visit the investigating agency with the consequence of an inference of impropriety merely because of such an interruption." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 27, 2026, held that directing investigating agencies to continuously videograph every movement of an accused during transit is practically unworkable and self-defeating.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while video-recording custodial interrogation is a salutary safeguard, extending this mandate to cover logistical transit over long distances creates unrealistic burdens on the police. The Court noted that technical failures during travel could unfairly visit the investigating agency with the consequence of an inference of impropriety.

The appellant-State approached the Supreme Court challenging conditions imposed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a Magistrate while granting police custody of a Police Inspector accused of a custodial death. The lower courts had restricted the interrogation strictly to a Central Prison and later, the High Court directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to continuously videograph every movement of the accused during his 160-kilometer transit between the prison and the crime scene. The State argued these conditions impinged upon the statutory right of the investigating agency to conduct an unhindered investigation.

The primary question before the court was whether a constitutional court can mandate continuous, uninterrupted videography of an accused during transit between locations. The Court was also called upon to determine whether confining custodial interrogation entirely within prison premises and allowing continuous advocate presence frustrates the statutory mechanism of police remand under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Impracticality Of Transit Videography

The Court strongly disagreed with the High Court's directive requiring the SIT to videograph every movement of the accused from the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram to Vijayawada and back. The bench noted that this entailed a transit of approximately three hours each way over a distance of 160 kilometers. Labeling this an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, the Court observed that such a requirement reduces a crucial constitutional safeguard into a mere logistical exercise.

"What the safeguard requires is that the interrogation itself, that is, the actual questioning of, or interaction with, the respondent-accused be continuously and contemporaneously recorded; the requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, which is a totally logistical exercise."

Technical Failures Cannot Imply Police Impropriety

Delving into the practical realities of road travel, the bench highlighted that interruptions are inevitable due to signal loss, battery drainage, storage limitations, or security considerations. The Court held that it would be highly unrealistic to subject the investigating agency to adverse inferences merely because a camera stopped recording during transit. The bench clarified that while CCTV documentation of actual interrogation is essential to protect the accused from coercion, extending it to transit is completely unworkable.

Interrogation Within Prison Limits Investigation

Addressing the condition that confined the entirety of the interrogation to the Central Prison, the Court termed it neither justified nor sustainable. The bench noted that the deceased victim's body remained untraced and crucial discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 were imminent. The Court emphasized that the efficacy of such discoveries depends on taking the accused to the actual scene, which cannot be achieved by interrogating him from a distance of 160 kilometers.

New Remand Scheme Under BNSS Explained

The Court also analyzed the new statutory scheme under Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS, contrasting it with the erstwhile Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench observed that the BNSS enlarges the window during which the aggregate fifteen days of police custody can be sought, spreading it across the first forty or sixty days of detention. Consequently, the Court struck down the Magistrate's condition that placed an absolute, non-extendable outer limit on the police custody, noting that such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) regardless of fresh discoveries.

Scope Of Advocate's Presence Clarified

Interpreting Section 38 of the BNSS, the Court clarified the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate of their choice. The bench held that a plain reading of the provision does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session. While allowing the lawyer to remain within the site of interrogation where they can see the accused, the Court strictly barred the lawyer from intervening in the investigation process at any cost.

The Supreme Court ultimately modified the lower court orders, permitting the SIT to interrogate the accused at a designated secure facility outside the prison and striking down the requirement for continuous transit videography. However, the Court retained the mandate for audio-visual recording of actual interrogation sessions and discoveries, ensuring constitutional safeguards under Article 21 are maintained without paralyzing the investigation.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026