Judicial Enforcement of Audio‑Video Recording and Limited Counsel Presence as Investigative Safeguards

Introduction

In P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on April 17, 2025 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), a Member of Parliament challenged the procedure for recording his statement in an ongoing criminal investigation (Crime No. 21 of 2024, CID Police Station, Mangalagiri). The petitioner feared potential physical abuse and sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing that his examination be conducted in the presence of his chosen advocate and recorded through audio‑video electronic means. The core issues were:

Whether an investigating officer can be compelled to record a statement via audio‑video electronic means when Section 161(3) CrPC does not make it mandatory;
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have an advocate of his choice physically present during examination;
The extent of the Court’s power under Article 226 to issue procedural directions in aid of personal liberty and fair investigation.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, disposed of the petition with the following key holdings:

The petitioner may be accompanied by two advocates, though only one may remain within the recording area at a distance of 10 feet from the examination table, ensuring visibility but no interference.
The investigating officer is directed to record the statement of the petitioner within the coverage area of already‑installed CCTV cameras in the police office, ensuring transparency and accountability.
No absolute order was made mandating audio‑video recording in all cases, recognizing the statutory discretion vested in the officer under Section 161(3) CrPC and Section 180(3) BNSS 2023.
These directions balance the petitioner’s right to personal liberty and dignity against the operational discretion of law enforcement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018 5 SCC 311): The Supreme Court emphasized the need for CCTV‑enabled recording of custodial examinations to prevent abuse and ensure accountability. It held that videography protocols may differ across States but must provide reliable audio‑visual records.
Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others (2021 1 SCC 184): The Court directed installation of comprehensive CCTV systems in all police stations, with audio‑video capability, night vision and 18 months’ data retention; this laid down detailed guidelines for coverage of entry/exit points, lock‑ups, corridors, and key offices.
Y.S. Avinash Reddy v. CBI (2023 SCC Online TS 4075): The Telangana High Court held that audio‑video recording under Section 161(3) CrPC remains discretionary, but persons examined may request it; the officer must consider such requests to uphold the purpose of the provision.
W.P.(PIL) No.32 of 2019 (Andhra Pradesh HC, July 15, 2019): This Court accepted a phased approach to CCTV installation in police stations and prisons, reaffirming compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Dilip K. Basu and Shafhi Mohammad.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in several steps:

Constitutional Jurisdiction: Under Article 226, the High Court may issue directions to protect personal liberty. The petitioner’s apprehension of physical abuse and desire for procedural safeguards engaged Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Statutory Framework:
- Section 161(3) CrPC (proviso): Audio‑video recording is permitted but not mandatory, leaving discretion with the investigating officer.
- Section 180(3) BNSS 2023: Mirrors Section 161(3), confirming the permissive nature of electronic recording and specifying gender‑sensitive recording for certain offences.
Balancing Discretion and Protection: While the legislature has not mandated audio‑video recording in every case, Courts have inherent powers to ensure fair process. The petitioner's status as a public figure did not diminish his right to procedural safeguards.
Practical Directions: Rather than issue a blanket mandate, the Court tailored directions to the facts:
- Use of already‑installed CCTV ensures no new infrastructure burden.
- Limited counsel presence guarantees legal support without hindering the investigation.

Impact

This decision has several potential consequences:

It affirms the High Court’s power to issue procedural directions beyond statutory minima, reinforcing judicial oversight over custodial processes.
Investigating officers may now face similar applications for audio‑video recording and counsel presence, promoting transparency and deterring custodial abuse.
Other High Courts may adopt this balanced approach—recognizing statutory discretion yet using writ jurisdiction to safeguard fundamental rights.
Police administrations might accelerate full implementation of CCTV guidelines to reduce litigation and improve public confidence in investigative fairness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 226 Constitutional Writs: The High Court can issue orders (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, etc.) to protect rights and ensure legality of state action.
Section 161(3) Criminal Procedure Code: Allows an investigating officer to record statements electronically but does not compel them to do so. It aims to deter coercion without unduly hampering investigations.
Section 180(3) BNSS 2023: The new Code of Criminal Procedure replacement (“Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita”) parallels Section 161(3) CrPC, affirming the permissive approach to audio‑video recording and adding gender‑sensitive recording requirements.
Writ of Mandamus: A judicial order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty. Here, the petitioner sought to “compel” audio‑video recording despite the statute’s permissive language.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in P.V. Midhun Reddy establishes a pragmatic precedent: while statutory provisions (CrPC and BNSS) vest investigating officers with discretion to record electronically, courts may—under Article 226—issue specific directions to safeguard personal liberty, dignity, and the integrity of the criminal justice process. By permitting limited counsel presence and mandating use of existing CCTV infrastructure, the Court has struck an equitable balance between operational flexibility and procedural fairness. Future litigants and courts will likely invoke this judgment to reinforce transparent, accountable investigations, thereby strengthening public trust in law enforcement and upholding fundamental rights.