Back
Can RTI Applicant Directly Seek CCTV Footage Under ? Says No
A two-judge bench of the has ruled that CCTV footage sought under the cannot be furnished directly to an applicant when it is covered by the under . The Court, however, clarified that the applicant may approach an appropriate court or commission, which can then direct preservation and production of the footage.
The RTI Quest for Camera Records
The case arose from a filed by Shobhit Kashayap, who had submitted an RTI application on seeking CCTV footage from a government facility. When the information was not supplied, he approached the . The Commission rejected his plea, leading him to move the High Court under .
Before the High Court, Kashayap sought several reliefs: quashing of the Information Commission’s order dated , a direction to provide the footage, imposition of the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 on the respondent officer under , and compensation for harassment under .
Arguments: A Clash of Rights and Exemptions
Petitioner’s Stand:
Counsel for Kashayap placed strong reliance on the ’s decision in
Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others
(2021) 1 SCC 184. He argued that the apex court had recognised preservation of CCTV footage as a right flowing from , and that the petitioner was entitled to have the footage secured in the event of a .
Respondent’s Stand:
The State Information Commission, represented by counsel, countered that the CCTV footage contained sensitive information and fell within the exception under of the . The Commission submitted that the footage could be produced before a court or commission if so directed, but could not be handed over directly to the applicant.
High Court’s Legal Analysis
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary carefully examined the ruling relied upon by the petitioner. They observed that Paramvir Singh Saini primarily dealt with the power of a court or commission to summon and preserve CCTV footage when a complaint of or is made.
The Court drew a critical distinction: the petitioner had not filed any complaint before any court or commission seeking redressal of a specific grievance. He had simply, and without any pending proceeding, demanded the footage under the . In such a scenario, the direct supply of CCTV footage falls squarely under the security-related exception in .
“In our view, the petitioner has, till date, not filed any complaint before any Court or Commission and has sought the CCTV footage. In our view, the said footage cannot be provided to the petitioner directly, as the same is covered by the exception contained in of the Act, 2005.”
The Court further clarified the correct legal course:
“In the event that the petitioner files a complaint before the , the said Forum/Court may very well direct preservation of the CCTV footage, as well as call for the actual footage for the purpose of verifying the complaint made by the petitioner.”
The Verdict and Its Significance
With the above observations, the High Court disposed of the . While it did not grant the direct reliefs sought, it left the door open for the petitioner to pursue his grievance through the proper channel—by first lodging a complaint before an appropriate forum.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the is not a substitute for other legal remedies. Where information is exempted from disclosure due to security or third-party interests, the applicant must first establish a need and seek intervention from a court or commission empowered to examine the material in its context.
For the legal community, the judgment provides a nuanced reading of and clarifies the interplay between the and the power of supervisory forums to access protected documents in the interest of justice. It also serves as a reminder that the right to information, though broad, is not absolute and must be balanced against statutory exemptions.
