Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1264
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Mari R – Appellant
Versus
Southern Railway – Respondent
CIC/SORLY/A/2023/655706
Disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act is restricted unless larger public interest is demonstrated, as upheld in the judgment.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Denial of information related to CCTV footage - Appellant sought information regarding CCTV cameras at a railway station for evidentiary purposes - CPIO denied certain information citing personal privacy - Appellate Authority upheld the denial, finding no public interest in disclosure. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Personal Information - Definition and protection under RTI Act - The court emphasized that personal information disclosure is restricted unless larger public interest is demonstrated, referencing judicial precedents. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, involved in a criminal case, sought specific information under RTI regarding CCTV cameras at a railway station, including operational details and footage for a particular time.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no infirmity in the CPIO's response and upheld the denial of footage due to its personal nature, aligning with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of CCTV footage constituted a violation of the RTI Act, particularly concerning personal information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the denial of CCTV footage was justified under Section 8(1)(j) as it contained personal information of third parties and no public interest was established by the appellant.
Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
“I am the accused in FIR No 34 of 2020 of Thiruvananthapuram Railway Police Station and in order to produce before the jurisdictional magistrate court namely Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Thiruvananthapuram in CC No 81 of 2020 and the following information is applied under the RTI Act 2005.
1) Total number of CCTV cameras installed in platform no. 1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 and technical specification of the CCTV cameras installed in platform no.1.
2) Name and designation of the officer in charge of operation of CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs.
3) Name and designation of the officer in charge of the server in which data/images from CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs are stored.
4) Whether there is the option to manually control the CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 a) If yes, details of the CCTV cameras
5) Details of CCTV software used for CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020.
6) Digital copy of the recording from all CCTV cameras installed in Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs.”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 22.06.2023 stating as under:
“1. Total 14 Numbers CCTV cameras are available on platform No. 1/Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020, in which Five cameras are fixed cameras and Nine are PTZ cameras.
2. Exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Yes. PTZ cameras can be manually operated.
5. Mirasys.
6. CCTV footages are being provided to Law enforcing agencies for evidentiary process, on production of FIR/case registration details for investigation purpose.”
Being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO against point No. 2, 3 and 6 of RTI application, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.09.2023 held as under:
The appeal submitted by the appellant is verified. I went through the case carefully, duly calling for connected records and as Appellate Authority, I have ordered to furnish the required information to you. The information requested by you is herewith attached.
2. Sri. Sabu Jacob, Post Commander/RPF/Trivandrum Central on 22-03-2020.
(ii) Sri. Saji.P.John, HC/RPF/ Trivandrum was on duty at CCTV control room between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs. on 22.03.2020.
3. Sri. Sreekuttan, Sr. Section Engineer/ charge of the server in which data/images Tele/Wireless/ from CCTV Cameras installed in platform 22.03.2020.
6. CCTV footages are being provided to Law enforcing agencies for evidentiary process, on production of FIR/case registration details for investigation purpose as exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal for denial of information against point No. 6 of RTI application.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Absent.
Both the parties remained absent during hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records observes that the core contention raised by the appellant in the instant appeal was denial of information by the respondent at point No. 6 of the RTI Application. The appellant does not contend the response of the CPIO on any other point of RTI application. On the o
