Can You Use CCTV Footage to Discipline or Dismiss a Worker in India?
Yes, as evidence inside a fair domestic enquiry, not as a verdict on its own. As of 14 Oct 2026, the Model Standing Orders, 2026 (plants with 300+ workers) require a charge, a hearing and a written order before dismissal. The Supreme Court holds that a domestic enquiry may act on any material that is "logically probative for a prudent mind".
Last checked: 14 Oct 2026
By the Mama Editorial Team. Not legal advice: talk to labour counsel before you suspend or dismiss anyone.
Verified against
- Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (35 of 2020), Gazette of India: ss.4(9)–(11), 28, 29, 38, 50(1), 90; in force 21 Nov 2025 (S.O. 5320(E)).
- Model Standing Orders, 2026, S.O. 2312(E), 8 May 2026, Schedule B paras 1A, 22, 23.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: ss.1(2) and 63.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872, India Code: s.1.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, MeitY: ss.7(i) and 8(7).
- Supreme Court, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. v. H.H. Pujar, C.A. No. 4520 of 2008, 18 Jul 2008, [2008] 10 SCR 1149, quoting State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 (SCR copy, Rajasthan High Court site).
- Supreme Court, Workmen of Balmadies Estates v. Management, Balmadies Estate, C.A. No. 2435 of 2006, 18 Jan 2008, [2008] 1 SCR 867 (SCR copy, Rajasthan High Court site).
- Checked 14 Oct 2026.
What the law actually says about misconduct and dismissal
The Model Standing Orders, 2026 are made under IR Code s.29(1); Schedule B covers manufacturing.
Para 23(5) of Schedule B lists 23 kinds of misconduct, (a) to (w). A camera can record several: theft, wilful damage, sleeping on duty, fighting, leaving work without permission, not wearing protective equipment.
The Model Standing Orders, 2026 (S.O. 2312(E), 8 May 2026) do not mention CCTV, cameras, surveillance or video (English gazette text, checked 14 Oct 2026). Footage is one kind of evidence, with no special status.
"Habitual" misconduct has a number: three or more times in the preceding twelve months (Schedule B para 1A(1)(c)).
| Rule | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Who it binds | Standing orders chapter applies to establishments with 300 or more workers on any day in the past 12 months | IR Code s.28(1) |
| Default rules | Model standing orders are deemed adopted until your own are certified | IR Code s.29(2) |
| Suspension | Allowed pending enquiry; reasons in writing within one week | Sch. B para 23(1), 23(6)(b) |
| Time limit | Investigation and enquiry ordinarily within 90 days of suspension | IR Code s.38(1); Sch. B para 23(2) |
| Representation | Worker may appear in person or through a union office-bearer or a co-worker of choice | Sch. B para 23(6)(c) |
| Penalty hearing | Worker gets a reasonable opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty | Sch. B para 23(6)(f) |
| Proportion | Gravity, antecedents, and extenuating or aggravating circumstances must be weighed | Sch. B para 23(7)(i) |
| Appeal | Within 21 days to the appellate authority, who decides within 15 days | Sch. B para 23(8) |
How a domestic enquiry treats footage
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applies "to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court" (s.1(2)). The old Evidence Act, s.1, used the same words. An internal enquiry run by your enquiry officer is not a court.
The Supreme Court has said the strict evidence rules do not bind a domestic enquiry. In Rattan Singh (1977), quoted and applied in H.H. Pujar (2008): "in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible."
The same passage sets limits: "The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice." A finding vitiated by "perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment" cannot stand.
In Balmadies Estates (2008), the Court said that in a domestic enquiry "guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the proof of misconduct would be sufficient". It added that "principles of fairness are to apply".
Both judgments speak of the 1872 Act. The BSA that replaced it keeps the same scope: it applies to proceedings "in or before any Court".
Where Section 63 comes back in
A dismissed worker can take the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. IR Code s.4(9) deems an individual dismissal an industrial dispute, and ss.4(10)–(11) allow a direct application, 45 days after seeking conciliation and within two years of dismissal.
Under s.50(1), if the Tribunal finds the dismissal "was not justified", it may set it aside, order reinstatement, or substitute "any lesser punishment".
Whether the Tribunal insists on a BSA s.63 certificate is a question for counsel; prepare one anyway. Our Section 63 BSA step-by-step guide covers the hash value and the two signatures.
If an industrial dispute is already pending, IR Code s.90 restricts dismissal. Misconduct connected with the dispute needs the authority's express written permission. For unconnected misconduct, you must pay one month's wages and apply to the authority for approval. For a "protected worker" (a union office-bearer recognised as protected under s.90(3)), you need its express written permission.
A footage protocol for a charge-sheet
- Preserve the full window the same day. Export natively from the NVR, with 15–30 minutes either side, and hash the file. See how long footage must be kept.
- Write the charge in words, not "see video". Name the act, the date, the time and the para 23(5) clause. The clip supports the charge; it is not the charge.
- Show the footage to the worker in the enquiry. Let them and their representative view it and question whoever exported it. An unseen clip is easy to attack.
- Look for the innocent explanation. Was the "idle" worker waiting for material or a setter? Check the job card and shift log.
- Corroborate. Pair the clip with a witness, a register or an admission; in H.H. Pujar, the conductor's admission carried the case.
- Record findings and penalty separately. Hear the worker on penalty, weigh antecedents, give a copy of the order and name the appellate authority.
Worked example: what a 120-day suspension costs
Subsistence allowance is set by IR Code s.38(3), repeated in Sch. B para 23(4): 50% of wages for the first 90 days, then 75% if the delay is not the worker's fault. Assume ₹18,000 a month (₹600 a day over 30 days), illustrative, not a minimum wage.
| Period | Days | Rate | Amount (₹) |
|---|---|---|---|
| First 90 days | 90 | 50% of ₹600 | 27,000 |
| Days 91–120 (delay not caused by worker) | 30 | 75% of ₹600 | 13,500 |
| Total subsistence paid | 120 | 40,500 |
If the worker is dismissed, the allowance paid is not recovered (Sch. B para 23(6)(f)). If cleared, they get full wages minus the allowance (para 23(6)(g)).
Privacy: the footage you rely on must be footage you could lawfully keep
Under DPDP Act s.7(i), an employer may process personal data "for the purposes of employment or those related to safeguarding the employer from loss or liability". Investigating a charge of theft or damage fits that wording.
Section 8(7) requires erasure once the purpose "is no longer being served". G.S.R. 843(E) of 13 Nov 2025 brings Sections 3 to 17 of the DPDP Act into force on 14 May 2027; only s.6(9), Consent Manager registration, starts earlier, in Nov 2026. Keep the incident clip until the matter, including any Tribunal case, closes; let the loop overwrite the rest.
Workers should already know where cameras are and why; our worker CCTV notice under DPDP gives a template. Keep cameras out of toilets and changing areas. Whether a worker can refuse the camera itself: can workers refuse factory CCTV.
What footage cannot tell you
- Intent. A clip shows a carton leaving the line, not why.
- Identity. Low light, masks and uniforms make "who" weaker than "what".
- Patterns. One clip is not "habitual"; that needs three instances in twelve months.
For day-to-day management, aggregate patterns beat per-person tracking: see shop-floor discipline without micromanaging.
Where Mama fits
Mama reads a factory's existing cameras and reports to the owner how long machines and lines sat idle. It counts people only in aggregate and builds no case against any individual. Leave an email or phone in the form below.
FAQ
Can an employer dismiss an employee based only on CCTV footage in India?
Footage can be the main evidence, but dismissal needs a charge, a fair enquiry where the worker can answer it, and a hearing on penalty (Model Standing Orders 2026, Sch. B para 23). Corroboration makes the order safer.
Does the employee have a right to see the CCTV footage used against them?
The 2026 Model Standing Orders do not mention footage. The Supreme Court requires domestic enquiries to observe natural justice, and showing the worker the evidence relied on is the safe course.
Is a Section 63 certificate needed for CCTV in a domestic enquiry?
The BSA applies to proceedings "in or before any Court" (s.1(2)), and a domestic enquiry is not a court. Prepare the certificate anyway, because the dismissal may be challenged before the Industrial Tribunal.