THY RIGHT TO INFORMATION

VIEWS, NEWS AND RESOURCES ON THE RTI ACT 2005

MENU

To give or not to give the CCTV

footage under the RTI Act
Posted on May 15, 2019 by Shreysi Singh

!"#$%&'(&)*+&,'-%&.

! " # $

Share this on WhatsApp

Closed Circuit Television or ‘CCTV’ is a widely

deployed surveillance mechanism. Police and
other Government authorities utilise it to man
public spaces/Government properties, individuals
employ it to secure their premises. Often, the
need to scan a CCTV footage arises, either to
know what or how an event happened or to
check the veracity of an event.

An individual would not part with his CCTV

footage, unless, it is sought by some
Government authority having the mandate and
jurisdiction to do so. Government authorities may,
however, have to part with it, if, a citizen
demands so, under the RTI Act, 2005 (“the RTI
Act”).

Why and to what extent, a CCTV footage has

been held to be disclosable under the RTI Act, is
discussed below.

(a)Why is a CCTV footage disclosable under

the RTI Act?

Being a record available in electronic form,

CCTV footage falls under the definition of
‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Consequently, Central Information Commission
(“the CIC”) too, in its various decisions, held that
CCTV footage is an information as per the RTI
Act.

In the case of JB Narela, the RTI Applicant had

requested for all the CCTV recordings of the
ground floor of the Head Post office between
10:00 am to 12:00 pm. CIC opined that, since,
video recording is an information, it is the duty of
the public authority to provide it, except when its
denial is justified under the exemption provisions
of the RTI Act[1].

Thus, an RTI Applicant can obtain a CCTV

footage by filing an offline or online RTI
Application.

(b)CCTV footage and the exemption

provisions:

A study of CIC’s decisions indicates that the

CCTV footage can be withheld under the
exemption provisions of the RTI Act, on the
grounds of security and sovereignty of the
State, physical safety of an individual etc.

Thus, when the CCTV footage of the foot over

bridge of Dadar railway station was sought, it
was held to be protected as giving the same may
pose threats to the lives and limbs of the public
using the stations and trains[2].

Information on the working condition of the

CCTV cameras in
the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi
High Court and their footage for a certain period,
was denied, since, such information had a
security angle and could be misused and
compromise the security of the Courts.[3]

CCTV footage of a cashier’s counter having

images of the depositors of a bank was also
protected as its disclosure could endanger the
physical safety of the concerned[4].

Haryana State Information Commission too,

denied the CCTV footage of Superintendent of
Police’s office, as, furnishing it could endanger
the security and life of witnesses in heinous
crimes. In this case the applicant had submitted
that he required the footage to produce it as an
evidence of an incident of misbehaviour, in the
Court[5].

(c)CCTV footage deleted:

At times, it is submitted that the CCTV footage

cannot be supplied, as, it, has been deleted
as per the record retention policy of the public
authority. In such cases too, the RTI Applicant
gets deprived of information.

In a case related to the Airports Authority of

India (AAI), noticing that the plea of deletion of
the footage was being raised quite frequently by
the AAI, CIC, issued an advisory to its Chairman
to review the procedure of preservation of CCTV
footages of airports all over India, so that its
denial is minimised[6]

(d)CCTV footage disclosure in certain cases:

The plea of security and sovereignty of the

State, safety and physical security of an
individual does not always succeed. Thus,
when the CPIO denied CCTV footage of Central
Market, Dwarka, Delhi and CCTV footage of all
cameras installed outside the Police booth
there, on the ground, that its disclosure would
affect the strategic and security interests of the
Country, the CIC, distinguished the phrase of
‘maintenance of law and order’ from the
‘phrase of ‘strategic and security interests‘
took the view that CCTV footage recording is
related to maintenance of law and order and
not to the strategic and security interests of
the country. The footage can also provide
evidence in case crime occurs and help the law
enforcement agencies. Providing it, would ensure
public confidence in Police, greater accountability
and proper enforcement of law[7].

Similarly, in another case, where, the applicant

submitted that he required the data to prove
his appearance at the visitors area of the
police station on a particular date and the CPIO
had replied that the camera recording could not
be shared due to security reasons as it also
contained visuals of the strong room containing
arms and ammunition, the Tamil Nadu
Information Commission, directed the Public
Information Officer/Additional Superintendent
of Police to disclose a copy of the camera
recording in the Pollachi police station.[8]

Thus, the plea of strategic and security interests

of the State does not always prevail and the
applicability of the exemption provisions would
depend upon the facts of the case.

Conclusion:

Recently, in a news item, it was reported that a

family of an accused in a drug seizure case in
Nagpur obtained the CCTV footage from the
smart city project cameras, based on which they
would take legal action against police personnel
for certain illegalities committed by them[9].

Clearly, CCTV footage can help in verifying the

truthfulness of statements/events, however, its
disclosure can also harm the security and
strategic interests of intelligence
organizations/Government institutions. Thus, to
give or not to give the CCTV footage is like
walking on a tight rope, where an imbalance in
decision making can have fatal repercussions for
either the applicant or for the State.

[1] J B Narela Vs. PIO, Department of Posts,

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/107942 dated 23.02.2018

[2] Priyansu S Mishra vs Western Railway

Mumbai, File No.CIC/WRAIL/A/2017/135249
adjunct order dated 10.10.2018

[3] Sh. Assem Takyar Vs. CPIO, Supreme Court,

File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000411 & 412 dated
06/08/2013

[4] Sudesh Bainsla Vs, CPIO/LIC, Second

Appeal No.CIC/LICOI/A/2017/141682-BJ dated
8.8.2018

[5] Ajay Kumar Vs. SPIO cum DSP (HQ),

Sonipat, Haryana, Appeal Case No.4348 of 2015
dated 1.10.2015

[6] Kiran Sankar Roy Vs. PIO, Airport Authority of

India, Second Appeal
No.CIC/AAOIN/A/2017/601993, Adjunct Order
dated 25.09.2018

[7] Shri. Jaspreet Singh Vs. CPIO, Delhi Police,

Decision No.CIC/SB/A/2016/000949 dated
2.5.2017

8]https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/
cctv-footage-at-police-station-open-to-
scrutiny/article26657737.ece

[9]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/
cctv-footage-released-under-rti-catches-cops-on-
wrong-foot/articleshow/68455312.cms

Share this on WhatsApp

!"#$%&'(&)*+&,'-%&.

! " # $

# Information under RTI Act, 2005

! UNION OF INDIA VS. EHTESHAM

SHIV NARAIN WP (C) QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE
7204 DATED VS. CPIO, INTELLIGENCE
27.03.2019 BUREAU[1] "

Search …

SEARCH

RECENT POSTS
Suo moto disclosures under the RTI Act

CATEGORIES
Central Information Commission (7)

Certified copies under the RTI Act (2)

CPIO and FAA under the RTI Act, 2005 (2)

Fees under the Right to Information Act 2005 (1)

How to obtain information under the RTI Act 2005 (3)

Information under RTI Act, 2005 (7)

Judiciary and RTI (1)

Right to Information Rules (3)

RTI Judgments made easy (5)

Transfer of the RTI Application (1)

Uncategorized (8)

ARCHIVES
January 2022

September 2021

April 2021

January 2021

September 2020

April 2020

March 2020

February 2020

December 2019

November 2019

September 2019

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

April 2019

March 2019

February 2019

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

© 2022 Thy Right to Information. All rights reserved.

Hiero by aThemes