> The Supreme Court has commended Keralam for implementing a robust CCTV surveillance system across its police stations and directed that the Keralam model be replicated nationwide. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which is hearing a suo motu case registered in the wake of 11 custody deaths reported across India in 2025, noted that senior officers in Keralam can monitor police station footage in real time through a dedicated mobile application — a fact brought to the court's attention by amicus curiae Siddharth Dave. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan were also commended alongside Keralam.

> The court pointedly asked why other states cannot follow Keralam's example if the state has managed to put such an effective system in place. It expressed sharp displeasure at the slow pace of CCTV installation in police stations across the country, criticising both the Central government and several states. The court directed the Union Home Secretary to personally appear before it to review the progress of the scheme. States that have not yet filed compliance affidavits — only 11 have done so thus far — were given three more weeks, with a stern warning that principal secretaries of home departments would be required to appear in person and explain the delay when the case is taken up again on December 16.

> The court noted with particular concern the seven custody deaths reported from Udaipur division in Rajasthan alone. It observed that the absence of cameras in interrogation rooms creates conditions for human rights violations and that CCTV coverage in these spaces is essential to ensure transparency and accountability. States like Jharkhand were specifically cited for lack of progress, and shortcomings in Delhi and certain Central agencies were also flagged.

> The CCTV scheme is funded on a 60:40 basis between the Centre and the states. The court directed that coordination failures must not be allowed to obstruct implementation, and that CCTV systems must be made fully operational without further delay to ensure accountability and transparency across the country's policing infrastructure.

Copied from the Deshabhimani article which licenses its text under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 copyleft license.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, has held Piccolo Weddings and its proprietor liable for deficiency in service in connection with a wedding photography contract. The Commission observed that the lapses caused significant mental distress and hardship to the complainants, undermining the very purpose of preserving memories of a once-in-a-lifetime event.

The complainants, Dr Ostin Oomachen and Dr Kavya Santhosh P, had engaged the firm for photography and videography services for their wedding held on May 19, 2024. They opted for a “Bride and Groom Side Package” priced at ₹95,000, which included candid photography, cinematography, helicam coverage, albums, raw video files, wedding reels, a highlight video, and wedding story USBs. They paid ₹80,000 in total, including an advance of ₹10,000 and ₹70,000 on the wedding day.

However, the complainants alleged that several promised services were not delivered. The helicam coverage was not provided on the wedding day and no prior intimation was given, depriving them of the opportunity to make alternative arrangements. They also pointed out that key deliverables were either delayed or not provided at all, including wedding reels, while the highlight video was delivered belatedly. The raw footage and soft copies were incomplete, missing important bride-side events. They further cited serious quality issues, including poor editing, lack of continuity, omission of significant ceremonies such as “Madhuram Veppu,” incomplete coverage of the holy mass, and loss of footage due to technical errors.

The Commission found that the complainants had fulfilled their contractual obligations, while the service provider failed to adhere to the agreed terms by delivering incomplete and defective outputs. It also noted that deductions made by the opposite parties towards the non-provision of helicam services amounted to an admission of deficiency. The case proceeded on the basis of unchallenged evidence submitted by the complainants.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹80,000 within 30 days, failing which it will carry interest at 9% per annum from May 19, 2024, until realisation. It also ordered the payment of ₹2.5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. In case of default, the compensation amount will also attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realisation.

Published by Voxya as an initiative to assist consumers in resolving consumer grievances.

മാലിന്യ സംസ്കരണ രംഗത്ത് കേരളം നേടിയെടുത്ത മികവിന്റെ നേർക്കാഴ്ചകൾ... ബ്രഹ്മപുരവും ലാലൂരും

This seems interesting to think about. LDF and UDF have been abusing each other so much this election, so they might not form an alliance.

LDF NDA or UDF NDA alliance will give rise to "deal" conspiracy.

NDA wants congress mukt bharatham and LDF does not exist anywhere outside Kerala so they probably will want to join in an alliance with LDF if such a situation happens.

If UDF loses power again this election, then we can probably see a big split within UDF.

I dont really support any party. I tend to vote based on who I think should get the chance to rule in each election or I look at the individual who is representing me. But this time, I am so lost. Every party and candidate seems like a waste of my vote. I can't get a handle on why I am facing this predicament. Any thoughts?