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
29 Comments
Comments are closed.