JUDGMENT

Order dated 22.03.2022 and 29.04.2022 Exts.P4 and P6 of competent authority under the Right to Information Act are under challenge on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his son aged nine and half (91/ ) years while undergoing

2 treatment in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram on account of the alleged negligence of the Doctors, had died and for preservation and proving the negligence, sought information under the Right of Information Act for providing CCTV footage/visuals of 27.02.2021 at 8 p.m. onwards. Both the authorities have rejected the information by relying upon the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that the competent authority did not find satisfactory that disclosure of the information would be in the larger public interest, also that it includes footage of other patients and it would be infringing upon their privacy.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not availed the remedy of damages by filing a complaint of negligence but requested the police to register an First Information Report (FIR) and since police has not registered, approached this Court vide WP(Crl) No.466 of 2022. 4. This Court vide judgment dated 22.06.2022 disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to the Expert Committee appointed by the Government by the Circular dated 16.06.2008, to conduct a preliminary enquiry and further action on the same shall be taken by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 arrayed therein i.e., Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on receipt of the report. Even a request to the police also been made on 21.07.2022 for registration of the FIR and also for protecting the CCTV visuals. The authorities at the helm of affairs under the Right of Information Act have not appreciated the provisions of the Right of Information Act in correct perspective as there would be no other method for the petitioner to prove the negligence but by seeking the production of the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is no force or merit.

6. In the criminal writ petition petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“(1) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 3 and 4 to register an

FIR upon Ext.P1 complaint of the petitioner;

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or

any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 4th respondent to seize the CCTV visuals of the petitioner's minor son entering the RCC hospital, visuals of the treatment given to the minor boy at the Casualty and also the visuals of treatment in the pediatric ICU of the minor boy on 27-02-2021 from 8.00 p.m. onwards:

(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 3rd respondent to form an expert medical team consisting of the District Medical Officer of Health as Convener, District Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor, Senior Government doctor in the concerned speciality as nominated by the respective District Medical Officer and Forensic expert from the nearest Medical College be constituted in terms of the Government Circular Memorandum dated 16.06.2008 to investigate into the medical negligence resulting in the death of the petitioner's son in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.02.2021;

(iv) to issue such other writ, direction or order as are just and necessary to the facts and circumstances of the case and this Honourable Court deems fit to grant.”

Relief for saving the CCTV visuals was also sought for but the same was not accepted by the Court, instead the matter was referred to the Expert Committee to hold a preliminary enquiry and thereafter further ac