By Augusten Blah
Before Meghalaya expands its surveillance network, the public deserves to know how well the existing one is working.
There is an uncomfortable question at the heart of Meghalaya’s growing reliance on technology for public safety:
Are we building a larger surveillance system or are we first making sure that the system we already have actually works?
It is an important question, not because CCTV cameras are unnecessary, but precisely because they have become increasingly important to modern policing. A properly functioning CCTV network can deter crime, assist investigations, establish timelines, identify suspects, preserve evidence and provide an objective record of events. It can serve the interests of both the public and law-enforcement agencies. But a camera that does not record when it is needed cannot fulfil that purpose. And this is where the latest observations of the Meghalaya High Court deserve serious public attention.
What the High Court has recorded
In its order dated July 30, 2026, in Kishan K. Nongkynrih v. State of Meghalaya & Others, the Meghalaya High Court considered an affidavit submitted on behalf of the State concerning CCTV cameras installed in police stations. The Court recorded that the number of non-functional cameras appeared to be substantial. Among the examples specifically mentioned were around 50 cameras in Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, and about 129 cameras in Shillong, East Khasi Hills. The order also records that cameras at Laban Police Station were reportedly rendered non-functional after being struck by lightning, while cameras at several other police stations were reported to have developed mechanical defects. The Police Headquarters had written to the concerned firm on March 9, 2026, requesting technicians to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the reported malfunctioning cameras and provide an estimate for repair and restoration. Yet, when the matter came before the High Court, the Court observed that there appeared to have been no effective course correction and that the issue had not been adequately addressed. That observation should prompt a conversation, not a blame game. Now, the central question is simple:
What is the present condition of Meghalaya’s CCTV infrastructure?
The ₹25.24-crore proposal
There is another important development. The High Court recorded that Meghalaya Police Headquarters had submitted a proposal under the Assistance to States and Union Territories for Modernization of Police (ASUMP) scheme for 2026–27, seeking ₹25,24,34,500—approximately ₹25.24 crore. The proposal covers upgrading the existing CCTV surveillance system, installing additional cameras and establishing a Centralized Dashboard Monitoring System. But an important distinction must be made. The ₹25.24 crore is not an amount already sanctioned or spent. According to the High Court order, the proposal was still under consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the required funds had not yet been released. That distinction matters greatly in any responsible discussion of public expenditure. The issue, therefore, is not whether Meghalaya should receive ₹25.24 crore. The issue is whether any future investment should be accompanied by a clear understanding of what has already been installed, what remains functional, what has failed, and what is required to keep the system operational over the long term.
Modernisation should mean more than procurement
Meghalaya has already moved towards expanding technology-based surveillance. In 2024, the State announced plans for around 300 high-tech CCTV cameras in Shillong, linked to the Smart City initiative. The project was reported as part of a ₹150-crore allocation for the Integrated Control and Command Centre, with the surveillance system intended to incorporate technologies including facial recognition. Such investments reflect an understandable objective: to strengthen public safety and give law-enforcement agencies better technological tools. But modern policing cannot be measured only by the number of cameras purchased or installed. A functioning CCTV ecosystem requires much more than cameras mounted on poles or buildings. It requires reliable power, connectivity, recording equipment, adequate storage, monitoring, maintenance, periodic inspection, timely repairs and clear responsibility for each component. If any of these links fails, the effectiveness of the entire system can be compromised. A sophisticated dashboard cannot compensate for cameras that are offline.
The Supreme Court has already laid down the principle
This is not merely a matter of administrative preference. The Supreme Court, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others, issued detailed directions concerning CCTV cameras and recording equipment in police stations. The Court placed responsibility on the relevant authorities for installation, monitoring, maintenance and upkeep of CCTV systems. It also directed that non-functional cameras should be identified and corrective action taken. The Supreme Court further required CCTV coverage in police stations and prescribed requirements relating to recording and preservation of footage. The significance of these directions goes beyond crime prevention. CCTV footage can protect citizens by providing an objective record of what occurred inside or around a police station. At the same time, it can protect police personnel from false or unfounded allegations. In that sense, CCTV is not simply a tool of surveillance. It is also a tool of accountability. The Meghalaya High Court, in its July 30 order, specifically noted a prima facie concern regarding compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and called for detailed information concerning functional and non-functional cameras, installation dates, locations, budgetary allocation, storage of footage and annual maintenance contracts. These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic questions for any publicly funded infrastructure project.
What does the public actually need to know?
The public does not necessarily need another announcement about how many cameras will be purchased. It needs a reliable inventory.
For example:
- How many CCTV cameras have been installed across Meghalaya?
- How many are currently operational?
- How many are non-functional?
- At which police stations are they located?
- Since when have non-functional cameras remained out of service?
- What were the installation costs?
- How much has been spent on repairs and maintenance?
- What maintenance arrangements or contracts are currently in place?
- Who is responsible for reporting faults?
- What is the response time for repairing a defective camera?
- How long is CCTV footage actually retained?
- Are recording and storage systems functioning properly?
- How frequently are the systems inspected?
- What is the status of the proposed Centralized Dashboard Monitoring System?
These questions should not be interpreted as criticism of the police. Indeed, the opposite may be true. A transparent inventory would help the police themselves demonstrate where the problems lie, what needs replacement, what needs repair and where additional investment is genuinely required.
The difference between allocation and expenditure
There is another area where public discussion should remain precise. Meghalaya’s 2026–27 budget provides approximately ₹1,404 crore for the Police sector. That figure represents the overall Police-sector allocation; it should not be presented as Meghalaya’s CCTV expenditure. PRS Legislative Research’s analysis of the State Budget confirms the ₹1,404-crore Police allocation for 2026–27. Likewise, the ₹25.24-crore ASUMP proposal should not be described as money already spent.
There is a fundamental difference between:
Allocated, sanctioned, released and actually spent. For public confidence, those distinctions should remain clear.
Accountability should not mean accusation
There is a temptation, whenever public infrastructure is found to be malfunctioning, to immediately ask: Who is to blame?
That question may eventually have its place.
But the more constructive question at this stage is:
What system will ensure that the problem does not recur?
CCTV equipment will inevitably fail. Lightning can damage equipment. Mechanical components can malfunction. Power and connectivity can fail. Technology becomes obsolete. Repairs can take time. The existence of malfunctioning equipment, by itself, does not establish wrongdoing. What matters is whether there is a system capable of identifying failures quickly, reporting them properly, repairing them promptly and ensuring that responsibility is clearly assigned. That is where accountability becomes meaningful.
Measuring outcomes, not merely equipment
Governance in the technology age cannot be measured simply by procurement. A thousand cameras are not necessarily better than five hundred. If 500 cameras are reliably recording, securely storing footage and being actively monitored, they may provide greater public value than 1,000 cameras of which a significant proportion are unavailable when required. The same principle applies to every form of public infrastructure. A road is valuable when it is usable. A hospital is valuable when it can provide functioning services. A communication network is valuable when it works. And a CCTV camera is valuable when it is watching, recording and preserving evidence when it matters.
The opportunity before Meghalaya
The present situation should not be viewed only as a problem. It is also an opportunity. If the proposed modernisation programme moves forward, Meghalaya can use it to build a CCTV system that is not merely larger but substantially more reliable.
Future investment could incorporate:
Clear maintenance standards, defined response times for faults, regular technical audits, transparent performance monitoring, reliable storage and backup, clear responsibility at every level, and publicly verifiable performance data.
Most importantly, every new installation should be accompanied by a long-term maintenance strategy. Installing a camera is the beginning of its public-service life and not the end of the project.
Before the next camera is installed, Meghalaya unquestionably needs modern policing. It needs trained personnel, better communications, reliable technology, adequate infrastructure and tools capable of responding to changing patterns of crime. CCTV can be an important part of that effort. But modernisation should not become synonymous with simply buying more equipment. Before expanding the network, the State has an opportunity to establish a clear baseline:
How many cameras do we have?
How much work?
How many do not?
Why are they not working?
How long have they been out of service?
What will be done to ensure that the same problem does not happen again?
These are not anti-government questions. They are not anti-police questions. They are questions of good governance, responsible public expenditure and public confidence.
The Meghalaya High Court has already asked for a more comprehensive picture of the State’s CCTV infrastructure. The most constructive response would be a comprehensive, transparent and verifiable picture. Because ultimately, citizens are not asking the State merely to watch them. They are asking the State to protect them. And when public money pays for a security camera, the public is entitled to expect that when the moment comes, the camera will be watching.
