Allahabad HC clarifies that sensitive CCTV footage falls under statutory exceptions and cannot be disclosed directly to applicants; Court/Commission may preserve footage only when verifying formal complaints
In a significant judgment on the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Allahabad High Court's Division Bench has clarified that CCTV footage containing sensitive information cannot be directly provided to RTI applicants, even when requested through formal information applications. The court, however, acknowledged that judicial forums and commissions retain the authority to call for and preserve such footage when verifying complaints of human rights violations.
The judgment was delivered in the case of Shobhit Kashayap v. State of U.P. through Addl. Principal Secretary, Administrative Reform Department, and others (Writ-C No. 7418 of 2026), heard by Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shobhit Kashayap, had filed an RTI application dated 20-03-2025 seeking complete information, including CCTV footage, for a specific time period. When the State Information Commissioner declined to provide the CCTV footage, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking multiple reliefs, including issuance of mandamus to compel disclosure of the footage, imposition of maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 against the public information officer, and compensation for alleged harassment suffered due to non-disclosure.
Court's Key Findings
The High Court emphasize that CCTV footage falls squarely within the exceptions contemplated under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts information the disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The court noted that sensitive footage cannot be provided directly to applicants without proper verification of the legitimacy of the request and the underlying complaint.
Justice Saraf, while referring to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184, acknowledged that courts and commissions do possess the power to call for CCTV footage and direct its preservation. However, this power is exercisable only when a formal complaint has been filed before the appropriate forum, not merely upon an RTI application.
Distinction Between RTI Access and Judicial Inquiry
The judgment makes a crucial distinction between information that can be accessed through RTI applications and evidence that may be summoned during judicial proceedings. While the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in governance, it contains built-in safeguards to protect information that could compromise investigations, endanger individuals, or violate privacy rights. CCTV footage, particularly when it captures activities within police stations or government offices, often contains sensitive personal information and falls within these protective exceptions.
The court emphasized that the petitioner's proper recourse was to file a formal complaint before the appropriate forum—whether a Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Court, or the relevant investigating agency—rather than seeking direct access through an RTI application.
Framework for Future Complaints
The High Court provided a clear procedural roadmap for citizens seeking CCTV footage in cases of alleged violations. If the petitioner files a complaint before an appropriate court or commission, such forums have the express authority to:
- - Call for CCTV footage directly from the concerned authorities
- - Direct the preservation of such footage
- - Utilize the footage to verify the allegations made in the complaint
- - Facilitate investigation by the appropriate agency
Compensation and Penalty Denied
The court rejected the petitioner's plea for compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act and for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) and (2). The bench observed that the petitioner had not followed the proper legal procedure and had not filed a complaint before the appropriate forum as required. Without such a foundational step, the grounds for claiming compensation or penalty were deemed to be non-existent.
Implications for RTI Applicants
This judgment has significant implications for citizens seeking sensitive information through RTI applications. It clarifies that the RTI Act, while a powerful tool for transparency, is not a substitute for filing formal complaints with appropriate authorities when one seeks to verify allegations of misconduct or violations. The decision respects both the right to information and the necessity to protect sensitive information during ongoing investigations or proceedings.
The court's approach balances two important considerations: the citizen's right to access public information and the state's responsibility to protect sensitive information that could compromise investigations, endanger witnesses, or violate privacy rights.
Conclusion
By disposing of the writ petition with these directions, the High Court has reinforced the statutory framework governing information access while simultaneously preserving the authority of courts and commissions to obtain and utilize CCTV footage for verifying serious complaints. Citizens seeking access to CCTV footage in cases involving alleged human rights violations or misconduct are advised to first file formal complaints before the appropriate forum rather than relying solely on RTI applications.
The judgment represents a mature reading of the RTI Act that recognizes it as a transparency mechanism within a broader framework of accountability, investigation, and justice, rather than as an absolute right to access all government-held information without qualification.
Bottom Line:
Right to Information Act, 2005 - CCTV footage containing sensitive information falls within exceptions contemplated under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act - Court/Commission has the authority to call for and direct the preservation of CCTV footage for verifying complaints but cannot directly provide such footage to the applicant.
Statutory Provision(s)
Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(g); Section 19(8)(b); Section 20(1); Section 20(2); Constitution of India, Article 21; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Sections 17, 18, and 30
Shobhit Kashayap v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972324
