Societies say directive places undue burden on private communities to monitor public spaces
Residential societies in Pune’s eastern city commissionerate are protesting a recent police directive that requires them to install high-definition night vision CCTV cameras, conduct online staff verification, and store surveillance data for six months—all within a 15-day deadline. The move, prompted by a recent incident involving a fabricated rape case in Kondhwa, has been criticised as excessive, unclear, and unfairly punitive.
The notice, delivered both verbally and in writing to housing society managers, mandates a wide range of security measures: surveillance of both internal premises and adjoining public roads, ID checks for all visitors, vehicle entry restrictions for outsiders, and mandatory in-person police station visits for tenant verification—despite the existence of an online portal for this purpose. Societies are also expected to train private security guards in fire safety and display emergency contact numbers prominently on-site.
While authorities argue that these steps are necessary to strengthen safety and streamline law enforcement, residents and civil society members say the order imposes disproportionate responsibilities on private housing communities.
“We are not against better security, but this is one-sided enforcement,” said Rukmini Chauhan, a resident of Undri. “Installing high-definition cameras to monitor public roads, storing footage for six months, and training guards in fire-fighting are financial and operational burdens. If the aim is public safety, the PMC and the police should install and maintain these systems themselves.”
Social worker Jaymala Dhankikar from NIBM Annexe echoed the frustration, highlighting what she called a persistent lack of action by civic bodies. “We’ve been asking for CCTV cameras on public roads for two years. Neither the police nor PMC has delivered. And now societies are being ordered to do this themselves, and in just 15 days? It’s a clear double standard,” she said.
Residents also raised concerns about the feasibility of some of the proposed measures. “We don’t oppose online verification. Many of us already do it,” said Anil Mathur, chairman of a society in NIBM Annexe. “But verifying every third-party staff member, including those from housekeeping agencies, is not realistic. We need clarity, not vague threats of action.”
In response to the growing backlash, additional commissioner of police (eastern region), Manoj Patil, acknowledged the discontent and said the matter would be reviewed. “The police stations have issued the order, but I will look into the exact directives. The tenant verification portal is already in use and citizens are encouraged to use it for their safety,” he said.
Former IT commissioner A J Khan suggested that urban safety requires a collaborative approach. “Experts in urban governance have long recommended joint responsibility, where the PMC and police manage public infrastructure and societies focus on internal security,” he said. “As it stands, residents are scrambling to understand what exactly is required of them. We need a balanced and structured system—security must be a shared responsibility, not a private burden.”
With the compliance deadline fast approaching, many societies say they are unclear about the scope of the requirements and fear potential penalties. As discontent mounts, calls are growing for more dialogue between civic authorities, law enforcement and local communities—before enforcement begins.
