CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Article 226 — Habeas Corpus — Personal liberty — Directions to Magistrate to verify CCTV footage — Failure to comply — Judicial discipline and consequences. In a habeas corpus writ alleging illegal custody and seeking to declare arrest and remand in Crime No.390 of 2024 (Kothapet P.S.) as illegal, the High Court earlier directed the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, to view CCTV footage of specified police stations for the period 04-11-2024 to 08-11-2024, identify and mark portions showing the detenus’ presence and circumstances, and submit a report within six weeks. Despite repeated extensions and reminders through the Principal District Judge, the Magistrate failed to complete the exercise, citing “technical problems”, and no report reached the High Court even by December 2025. The Division Bench strongly deprecated the laches and inaction, holding such conduct shows scant respect to the Court’s directions in a matter concerning personal liberty. One final week was granted to file the report, failing which appropriate legal action, including contempt, would be initiated. Principal District Judge directed to monitor compliance. Matter adjourned. (Velamuri Chandrasekhar Reddy v. State of A.P. & Ors, W.P.No.25462 of 2024, order dated 08-12-2025, per C.M. Roy & V. Gopala Krishna Rao, JJ.)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Article 226 — Habeas Corpus — Personal liberty — Directions to Magistrate to verify CCTV footage — Failure to comply — Judicial discipline and consequences.
In a habeas corpus writ alleging illegal custody and seeking to declare arrest and remand in Crime No.390 of 2024 (Kothapet P.S.) as illegal, the High Court earlier directed the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, to view CCTV footage of specified police stations for the period 04-11-2024 to 08-11-2024, identify and mark portions showing the detenus’ presence and circumstances, and submit a report within six weeks. Despite repeated extensions and reminders through the Principal District Judge, the Magistrate failed to complete the exercise, citing “technical problems”, and no report reached the High Court even by December 2025. The Division Bench strongly deprecated the laches and inaction, holding such conduct shows scant respect to the Court’s directions in a matter concerning personal liberty. One final week was granted to file the report, failing which appropriate legal action, including contempt, would be initiated. Principal District Judge directed to monitor compliance. Matter adjourned.
(Velamuri Chandrasekhar Reddy v. State of A.P. & Ors, W.P.No.25462 of 2024, order dated 08-12-2025, per C.M. Roy & V. Gopala Krishna Rao, JJ.)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE / JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION — Compliance with High Court directions — Subordinate judiciary — Duty to act promptly in matters of liberty — Possible contempt for non-compliance.
Subordinate judicial officers are bound to comply expeditiously with directions of the High Court, particularly in habeas corpus matters involving alleged illegal custody. On a Magistrate’s repeated failure to view CCTV footage and report on detenus’ presence in police stations despite specific, time-bound orders, the High Court held that such conduct attracts legal consequences and warned that the Magistrate may be summoned and proceeded against for contempt if the report is not filed within one further week.

2. Analysis of facts and law

(a) Procedural background of the writ

• Writ petition: W.P.No.25462 of 2024 under Article 226, styled as a writ of habeas corpus.

• Petitioner: Velamuri Chandrasekhar Reddy.

• Respondents: State of A.P., DGP, SPs of Palnadu and Prakasam, several Station House Officers (Chilakaluripet Urban/Rural, Ongole, Kothapet), and DSP, Ongole.

• Substance of main prayer (as amended):

  • To declare the arrest of the detenu and the consequential remand order dated 08-11-2024 passed by the II Addl Civil Judge, Guntur-cum-FAC IV Addl Civil Judge, in Crime No.390/2024 (Kothapet P.S.) as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to well-established legal principles and violative of constitutional rights;

  • To declare the arrest and remand as illegal and set aside the said remand order.

• I.A.No.1 of 2024 sought a direction to produce CCTV footage of specified police stations, which is critical in a habeas corpus matter to verify whether the detenu was in illegal custody prior to formal arrest/remand.

(b) Earlier orders regarding CCTV footage

1. Order dated 14-08-2025 (Coordinate Bench on I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025)

   • The IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, was directed to:

     • Watch the CCTV footage produced before her,

     • Verify and mark portions indicating the presence of either of the detenus in the police stations between 04-11-2024 and 08-11-2024,

     • Note the circumstances in which they were present, and

     • Submit a report within six weeks.

2. Order dated 13-10-2025

   • As the report was not received within the stipulated six weeks, the Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Guntur to ascertain reasons for delay by the Magistrate in complying with the earlier order and to submit a report.

3. Order dated 17-11-2025

   • No report having been received from either the Principal District Judge or the Magistrate by then, the Court again directed that the report be called for from the Principal District Judge, Guntur.

(c) Written submissions and explanation from Magistrate

• Subsequently, written submissions from the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, were transmitted through the Principal District Judge and placed on record.

• In a letter dated 27-10-2025, the Magistrate sought 10 more days, citing a “technical problem” in viewing the CCTV footage.

• Despite that, by early December 2025, no completed report had been submitted.

(d) High Court’s evaluation and legal reasoning

The Division Bench (Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. & V.G. Krishna Rao, J.) examined the Magistrate’s explanation and made several important observations:

1. Seriousness of the matter (personal liberty / habeas corpus)

   • The Court emphasized that the writ concerns personal liberty of a citizen and is a habeas corpus petition, where time is of the essence.

   • Directions to verify CCTV footage are not routine; they directly affect the Court’s ability to decide if there was illegal detention prior to formal arrest/remand.

2. Judicial discipline and duty of prompt compliance

   • The Bench noted that despite the direction being issued in August 2025, the Magistrate had not completed the process of verifying the CCTV footage or submitting a detailed report even by December 2025.

   • The Court “very seriously deprecates” the laches and inaction, observing that such conduct shows “scant respect for the Court” and its directions in a serious constitutional matter.

3. Handling of “technical problem”

   • The Bench held that if there was a technical problem in viewing the footage, the Magistrate should have:

     • Immediately posted the matter to the next day;

     • Rectified the technical defect;

     • Ensured the hard disk could be viewed; and

     • Submitted the report without delay.

   • The Court’s reasoning implies that mere technical difficulties are not a justification for prolonged non-compliance with a clear, time-bound judicial order.

4. Consequences for non-compliance / possible contempt

   • The Court indicated that such conduct may attract legal consequences for disobedience:

     • It stated that if this is the conduct shown in complying with High Court directions, the Magistrate would have to “take legal consequences of disobeying the directions” and for committing an act of contempt.

     • The Bench explicitly warned that, if non-compliance persists, the Magistrate would be summoned to Court and appropriate action for contempt would be taken.

5. Supervisory responsibility of Principal District Judge

   • The Court directed the Principal District Judge, Guntur to monitor compliance and ensure that the report is filed within the stipulated time.

   • This reinforces the hierarchical supervisory role of the District Judge in ensuring that directions of the High Court are duly obeyed by subordinate judiciary.

(e) Nature of the order — interlocutory / procedural

• The order dated 08-12-2025 does not decide the main habeas corpus petition on merits.

• It is an interlocutory procedural order:

  • Recording the Magistrate’s partial explanation,

  • Deploring the delay and non-compliance,

  • Setting a final strict timeline for filing the CCTV verification report, and

  • Warning of contempt proceedings if the direction is not complied with.

• The actual determination of legality of the arrest, remand, and alleged illegal custody is deferred till after the report is filed.

3. Conclusion / Operative directions

From the order:

1. The IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, is directed to:

   • File her detailed report complying with the earlier direction (viewing CCTV footage, marking presence of detenus, etc.)

   • Within one (1) week from the date of the order (08-12-2025).

2. Failure clause / contempt warning:

   • If the report is not filed within one week:

     • The Court will initiate appropriate legal action against her, including contempt proceedings for violating the directions of the High Court in a matter concerning personal liberty.

3. Communication & monitoring:

   • Registrar (Judicial) shall immediately communicate this order by the next day through the Principal District Judge, Guntur.

   • The Principal District Judge, Guntur, shall monitor and see that the report is filed within the stipulated period.

4. Next date:

   • The matter is directed to be listed on 15-12-2025, presumably to:

     • Verify compliance, and

     • Proceed further on the merits of the habeas corpus petition.