Allahabad High Court flags UP police failure on BNSS videography mandate

The BNSS videography mandate requires audio-video recording of search and seizure operations, a requirement the Uttar Pradesh Police have persistently failed to comply with, the Allahabad High Court noted. This ongoing issue directly relates to the BNSS videography mandate, which aims to enhance accountability and evidence integrity within law enforcement procedures.

In a recent ruling, the court questioned why police find the simple statutory requirement so difficult to implement, underscoring a growing judicial concern over the on-the-ground enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Judicial warnings regarding the BNSS videography mandate

While granting interim anticipatory bail to four individuals on August 24, 2026, Justice Rajeev Bharti of the court’s Lucknow Bench noted that the provision for videography, Section 105 of the BNSS, was being “practically not implemented.”

This observation points to a significant gap between legislative reform and its practical application by law enforcement agencies in the state, a sentiment echoed in previous court orders this year.

This is not the first time the Allahabad High Court has been forced to address this specific lapse. The court’s repeated interventions reveal a systemic issue within the state’s policing, despite the new laws coming into force on July 1, 2024.

The BNSS, which replaced the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), was designed to modernize the justice system, and videography was a cornerstone of this effort.

Earlier this year, on January 5, 2026, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made a similar observation while granting bail to an accused in a motorcycle theft case. In that instance, the police had claimed to recover 40 stolen motorcycles but had failed to conduct the mandatory videography of the seizure.

The lack of a video record cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative, contributing to the decision to grant bail.

Following that January ruling, the court had explicitly directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to formulate a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure compliance. However, as Justice Bharti’s more recent remarks indicate, the problem persists, suggesting that administrative directives have not yet translated into consistent action at the police station level.

The court’s pointed criticism

In the August hearing, which involved a case under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Justice Bharti expressed his dismay in clear terms. “This Court cannot understand why compliance with such a simple statutory requirement is a difficulty for police authorities,” he remarked.

The judge added, “In an age where audio-video recording is the norm, compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS should not be seen as burdensome or complex.”

The court noted that the Uttar Pradesh DGP had indeed issued a circular on July 21, 2025, reminding the force of the mandatory nature of Section 105. Yet, the case before the court was a clear example of its continued neglect.

The accused, who had no prior criminal history, were granted interim anticipatory bail partly due to the procedural questions raised by the police’s failure to document the seizure properly.

Understanding the Section 105 BNSS mandate

The introduction of Section 105 in the BNSS marked a significant shift from the previous legal framework. It was designed to create an un-editable, objective record of police actions during searches, thereby protecting citizens from false implication and safeguarding police officers against unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The law aims to create foolproof evidence for trial and enhance accountability.

The section’s requirements are specific. It dictates that the entire process—from conducting the search to preparing the seizure list and having it signed by witnesses—must be recorded by audio-video electronic means. The law even suggests a mobile phone as a preferable device, making it accessible to officers everywhere.

The recording must then be forwarded to the relevant Magistrate without delay, ensuring it becomes part of the official judicial record.

Furthermore, Uttar Pradesh has its own corresponding regulations. Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, reinforces this mandate and requires the video to be made part of the case diary and sent to the Magistrate within 48 hours.

The repeated failure to follow both central and state rules is what has drawn the ire of the High Court. The new BNSS remedies are intended to be followed strictly to ensure fairness.

A tale of two codes: CrPC vs. BNSS

The change brought by the BNSS is best understood by comparing it to the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The CrPC did not have a mandatory videography provision, a loophole that often led to protracted legal battles over the authenticity of evidence and the conduct of police during raids.

The integrity of a seizure often hinged solely on the testimony of police officers and often-unreliable independent witnesses.

The table below highlights the key differences in procedure:

Procedural Aspect	Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973	Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Videography	Not mandatory. Left to departmental discretion, if any.	Mandatory audio-video recording of the entire process (Section 105).
Witness Presence	Required the presence of two independent local witnesses (Sec 100).	Maintains witness requirement, but the entire process, including their signing, is videographed.
Evidence Integrity	Reliant on witness testimony and seizure memos (panchnama).	Video recording serves as primary, objective evidence of the process.
Submission to Magistrate	Seizure memo submitted to the court.	Video recording must be forwarded to the Magistrate without delay.

Implementation challenges on the ground

While judges question the lack of compliance, police officials unofficially point to several practical hurdles. In many rural or remote police stations, providing every investigating officer with a dedicated, tamper-proof recording device remains a logistical challenge. Though the law suggests mobile phones, concerns exist about data security, storage, and the chain of custody for a device that may also be the officer’s personal phone.

Training is another significant barrier. The shift from decades of established procedure under the CrPC to a technology-centric approach requires comprehensive and ongoing training for thousands of officers. Without it, even well-intentioned officers may fail to comply correctly with the technical requirements for creating admissible electronic evidence.

The Allahabad High Court’s directives have pushed for the creation of a robust SOP, likely to address these issues. Such a procedure would need to detail the type of equipment to be used, data handling protocols via portals like e-Sakshya, and the consequences for non-compliance.

The court has suggested that failure to follow the mandate could invite disciplinary action, a step that may be necessary to ensure the law is taken seriously. Such judicial oversight is crucial to how police FIR registration authority and subsequent investigations are conducted.

What this means for criminal justice in UP

The judiciary’s firm stance on the BNSS videography mandate has significant implications. Firstly, it strengthens the rights of the accused. When police fail to follow mandatory procedures, it creates doubt about the prosecution’s case, which can become a valid ground for granting bail or even acquittal during trial.

Secondly, it puts pressure on the state government and police leadership to expedite the rollout of necessary infrastructure and training. The court’s warnings serve as a clear signal that it will not accept resource shortages as a perpetual excuse for ignoring a fundamental tenet of the new criminal code. The success of India’s ambitious criminal law reform hinges on the effective implementation of such provisions.

As these cases continue to come before the courts, the focus will remain on whether the Uttar Pradesh Police can bridge the gap between the law’s intent and its practice. The consistent enforcement of Section 105 is not just about procedural compliance; it’s a test of the system’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of civil liberties in a new legal era.

What is Section 105 of the BNSS?

Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is a new legal provision that makes it mandatory for police to create an audio-video recording of the entire process of a search and seizure operation. This includes the search itself, the recovery of items, and the preparation and signing of the seizure list by witnesses.

Why is videography of search and seizure important?

Videography is crucial for several reasons. It promotes transparency by creating an objective record of the police’s actions. It protects citizens from potential abuses like false implication or planting of evidence, and it also protects police officers from false allegations of misconduct. The video serves as strong, impartial evidence in court.

What happens if police don’t follow the Section 105 mandate?

Failure to comply can have serious consequences for the prosecution’s case. As seen in recent Allahabad High Court rulings, it can create doubt about the recovery of evidence, leading to the court granting bail to the accused. Over time, it could lead to acquittals and may also result in disciplinary action against the non-compliant police officers.