[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mari R vs The Central Information Commission ... on 5 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARI R.,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.RAMASUBBU, NORTH STREET, ARCHIPATTY, SAIL
MALAY,PANAVADAYAL CHATHRAM,SANKARAN COVIL,TIRUNELVELI
DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 629176
BY ADVS.
SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY
SHRI.SOMAN P.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE
REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, B-WING, 2ND
FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110067
2 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY
MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
3 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL
SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM SOUTHERN RAILWAY -
TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE, PIN
- 695014
BY ADV SHRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA), CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:91
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P9 orders passed by the Central
Information Commission rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner
herein. The petitioner had sought the following information through an
application dated 25.05.2023:
"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 Centrał Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs
and 13 Hrs are stored.
4) Whether there is the option to manually controt the CCTV Cameras installed
2026:KER:91
in platform no.1 of Thiruvangnthapuram 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."
2. The Central Information Officer (CPIO) furnished a point-wise
reply on 22.06.2023 as follows:
"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."
3. Against the said reply of the CPIO against information sought as
point Nos. 2, 3 and 6, the petitioner preferred the first appeal in which the
following order was passed on 18.09.2023:
2026:KER:91
"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."
4. Aggrieved by the order passed in the first appeal, the petitioner
approached the Central Information Commission. The Commission found no
infirmity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and
accordingly rejected the appeal. However, it was noticed that the petitioner
and the 3rd respondent remained absent despite service of the hearing notice
in advance, and the Commission also took serious note of the conduct of the
3rd respondent for remaining absent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P9 order is
bad and also against the judgment of this Court in Jisal Rasak v. State of
2026:KER:91
Kerala [2019 (4) KHC 928], which held that the CCTV footage is "data" as
defined under the IT Act and said electronic record produced for inspection
of Court has to be regarded as documentary evidence and accused is entitled
for a cloned digital copy of the same. Thus, it is the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that he, being an accused against whom the CCTV
footage is being used, is entitled to get a copy of the same, for which the
information was sought, and the refusal to grant the same is clearly illegal.
6. The statement filed on behalf of the respondents contends that the
1st respondent is not a necessary party and that they do not intend to
contest the same. However, no statement has been filed on behalf of the 3 rd
respondent.
7. Taking note of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the statement stated above, I am inclined to set
aside Ext.P9 to grant an opportunity to the parties to project their
contentions. Accordingly, I direct the Central Information Commission to
rehear Ext.P8 appeal with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
If the petitioner and the 3rd respondent do not cooperate with the 1st
respondent, it will be open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders
2026:KER:91
in accordance with law. A decision as directed above shall be taken within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The impugned order is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed as
above.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
lsn
2026:KER:91
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO
RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED 25-05-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF GMAIL COMPLAINT DATED 05-06-2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO 34 OF 2020 DATED 22-03-2020
OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22-06-2023 NUMBERED
VXP/535/RTI/25/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH FIRST
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-09-2023 NUMBERED
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF SECOND APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 WITH FILE NO.
CIC/SORLY/A/2023/655706
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 12-03-2025 IN FILE
NO. CIC/SORLY/A/2023/655706 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.
