top of page

By:

Keshav Kumar and Prajjwal Morya

13 June 2026 at 7:42:49 am

Preventive Surveillance for Crime Prevention

India's solved cases are proving that surveillance can accelerate justice, while unresolved cases are demonstrating the devastating cost of its absence. Crimes are continuing to occur in shadows on deserted roads at midnight, inside locked rooms, and in spaces where victims are crying for help but no witness is stepping forward. Investigations are stalling, perpetrators are escaping, and thousands of criminal cases across India are remaining under trial for years because of inadequate...

Preventive Surveillance for Crime Prevention

India's solved cases are proving that surveillance can accelerate justice, while unresolved cases are demonstrating the devastating cost of its absence. Crimes are continuing to occur in shadows on deserted roads at midnight, inside locked rooms, and in spaces where victims are crying for help but no witness is stepping forward. Investigations are stalling, perpetrators are escaping, and thousands of criminal cases across India are remaining under trial for years because of inadequate evidence. In many instances, victims and their families are spending years waiting for justice, while crucial evidence disappears before investigators can secure it. This harsh reality is repeatedly surfacing in some of India’s most sensitive criminal investigations. The Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case remains one of India’s most debated unresolved investigations, where the absence of reliable surveillance and compromised forensic handling prevented a conclusive reconstruction of events. In each of these cases, the absence or failure of surveillance did not merely delay justice; it weakened the possibility of discovering the complete truth. Traditional investigative tools are increasingly proving inadequate in a technologically evolving society. Eyewitnesses are turning hostile, memories are fading, and physical evidence is degrading over time. Preventive surveillance is therefore emerging as one of the strongest pillars of modern criminal investigation. CCTV systems, facial recognition technology, drone monitoring, and digital forensics are continuously generating objective evidence that human memory cannot reliably provide. Unlike eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage does not forget, become intimidated, or alter its version of events. More importantly, the visible presence of surveillance itself discourages criminal behaviour before offences are even committed. India's experience increasingly demonstrates the value of surveillance-backed investigations. In the Nirbhaya case, CCTV footage from roads and public areas helped investigators trace the movement of the accused and establish a precise timeline. This evidence significantly strengthened the prosecution and contributed to the convictions. Similarly, in the 2022 Sidhu Moosewala murder case in Punjab, CCTV footage provided a major breakthrough. The footage showed suspected assailants refuelling a jeep allegedly used in the crime at a petrol pump between Fatehabad and Sardulgarh. The suspects' faces were clearly visible, helping investigators advance the case. Recognising the growing importance of technology-driven policing, the Government of India is increasingly investing in large-scale surveillance infrastructure. The Safe City Project under the Nirbhaya Fund is strengthening AI-enabled surveillance and emergency response systems in major cities with a focus on women’s safety. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) is digitally linking thousands of police stations to enable faster sharing of criminal intelligence and real-time access to records. The proposed National Automated Facial Recognition System (NAFRS) aims to help identify criminals and trace missing persons through centralised facial recognition databases. Meanwhile, the Smart Cities Mission is establishing integrated command and control centres across urban areas. These centres bring together CCTV feeds, traffic data and emergency response systems on a single monitoring platform. The judiciary has also repeatedly acknowledged the growing importance of electronic evidence. In Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that an adverse inference could be drawn where available CCTV footage was not produced, emphasising the importance of scientific and electronic evidence in modern investigations. Similarly, in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Court reinforced the evidentiary value of electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, giving greater legal recognition to digital and surveillance-based proof. Preventive surveillance is no longer a futuristic ambition; it is becoming an operational necessity. India’s solved cases are proving that surveillance can accelerate justice, while unresolved cases are demonstrating the devastating cost of its absence. When deployed responsibly and within legal safeguards, surveillance is not becoming an instrument of fear but a framework of accountability where truth survives longer than memory and justice finds a stronger voice. (Kumar is a retired IPS officer and forensic advisor to the Assam government. Morya is Security Operations Centre Analyst.)

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page