Allahabad High Court: CCTV RTI Disclosure Limited for Sensitive Footage

• The Allahabad High Court ruled that CCTV footage containing sensitive information cannot be directly disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
• This exemption is based on Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Courts or commissions, however, can order the preservation and production of such footage if a formal complaint is filed.
• The ruling distinguished between an individual's direct RTI request and a judicial body's power to summon evidence.
• Petitioner Shobhit Kashayap's request for direct disclosure was denied because he had not filed a complaint with an appropriate forum.

The court clarified that while judicial bodies and commissions possess the authority to summon and order the preservation of CCTV footage, this power does not translate into a direct entitlement for individuals to obtain such footage through a Right to Information application.

The Allahabad High Court, specifically its Lucknow Bench, has issued a significant ruling clarifying the limitations on obtaining CCTV footage through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The court determined that such footage cannot be directly disclosed to an applicant if it contains sensitive information, citing the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. This decision underscores that while transparency is a cornerstone of the Act, certain protections for sensitive data remain paramount.

However, the ruling does not entirely block access to such evidence. The High Court affirmed that a court or an appropriate commission retains the authority to order the preservation of CCTV footage and subsequently summon it, provided a formal complaint has been filed before them. This distinction highlights the procedural route necessary for securing sensitive information that is otherwise exempt from direct RTI disclosure.

Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary presided over the division bench that delivered this order, establishing a clear framework for how CCTV footage can be accessed when sensitive information is involved.

The case originated from a petition filed by Shobhit Kashayap, who approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Kashayap challenged an order issued by the State Information Commission on May 14, seeking comprehensive information in response to his RTI application, which was dated March 20, 2025. In addition to the information, he requested the imposition of a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 against the respondent under the RTI Act and compensation for alleged harassment.

The core of Kashayap's petition revolved around gaining access to CCTV footage. During the proceedings, counsel representing the State Information Commission argued that the footage in question contained sensitive information, thereby falling under the exemption stipulated by Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Commission maintained that while the footage could not be directly handed over to the applicant, it could be made available to a court or the Commission itself if a directive was issued. The Uttar Pradesh government and six other entities, including the State Information Commission, were named as respondents in the case. Kashayap was represented by advocates Suraj Kumar Nishad, Atul Raj, and Yogesh Soni, while the state's interests were served by a government counsel and advocate Shikhar Anand.

In reaching its decision, the Allahabad High Court carefully considered the Supreme Court's judgment in *Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others*. The petitioner, Shobhit Kashayap, had relied on this precedent to assert his right to the preservation of CCTV footage. The Supreme Court's ruling in *Paramvir Singh Saini* specifically addressed the preservation and production of CCTV footage, particularly in the context of complaints alleging human rights violations.

The Supreme Court had previously directed that concerned commissions or courts could immediately summon CCTV footage for safekeeping, and that such footage could subsequently be provided to an investigating agency. Furthermore, it mandated that CCTV footage maintained by police stations and other investigative or enforcement agencies must be preserved for a minimum period of six months. The Supreme Court also recognized a victim's right to have such footage secured in cases involving human rights violations. Examining these observations, the Allahabad High Court concluded that it was evident a court or commission possesses the inherent power to request and direct the preservation of CCTV footage. However, the court clarified that while judicial bodies and commissions possess the authority to summon and order the preservation of CCTV footage, this power does not translate into a direct entitlement for individuals to obtain such footage through a Right to Information application.

The High Court's ruling underscored a critical procedural distinction: an individual's direct request for CCTV footage via an RTI application is separate from the power of a court or commission to secure such evidence. In Shobhit Kashayap's specific case, the bench noted that he had not filed any formal complaint before a court or commission, having simply sought the CCTV footage directly through an RTI request. Consequently, the court held that the footage could not be supplied directly to him, as it fell under the exemption outlined in Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act due to its sensitive nature.

Crucially, the court did not entirely preclude access to the footage. It explicitly stated that if Kashayap were to file a complaint with an appropriate forum or court, that body would then be empowered to direct the preservation of the CCTV footage and call for the actual footage to verify the complaint. This clarifies that while direct CCTV footage direct access RTI disclosure is not guaranteed, particularly for sensitive information, a formal complaint mechanism provides a viable procedural route for obtaining such evidence, ensuring CCTV footage preservation order can be issued by the appropriate authority.

Lawyers advising clients seeking CCTV footage via RTI must understand that direct disclosure is not guaranteed, especially if sensitive information is involved under Section 8(1)(g). Instead, they should guide clients to file a formal complaint with a court or commission, which can then order preservation and production of the footage, clarifying the proper procedural route for obtaining such evidence.

Source: Reporting based on legal news coverage.