Jump to content
  • 0

Question

rtipatrol

Sir,

 

Inresponse to RTI application seeking CCTV footage at Tehsildar's office,PIO has stated that CCTV footage contains images and data of third party people present at Taluk Office.Above all he has stated that Information Technology Act has prohibited the sharing of CCTV footage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
jj99

cic in one order has said that one has to prove his/her point as to why CCTV footage is needed

one such reason is corruption, but it has to proven by rti applicant

file another rtiapplication and ask for section/sub section number of IT act under which CCTV footage is denied

also a prepare rti application ask for queris two follow section 11 of RTI act on third party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Ultimately, what ever was stipulated as information under RTI Act, and CCTV footage is a Public record. If any PIO states that it is third party information, he has to follow stipulations under Sec.11 and obtain their comments. Without invoking Sec.11, denial mentioning some other act is not proper. The denial should always be under Sec.8 sub sections alone and not any internal guidelines or other Acts.

 

Go for first appeal and escalate this to information commission, and get a good decision once for all.

I also suggest for filing of RTI application seeking such extract of IT stipulations that CCTV footage should not be provided under RTI Act.

Information solicited:

1)Please provide certified copy of extract in Information Technology Act section/stipulation that has prohibited the sharing of CCTV footage, under RTI Act.

(Sharing has several meanings like continuous coverage to others, circulating on regular basis etc)

2.Please provide such section under RTI Act that states that providing CCTV footage as denial and such denial without justification and without invoking Sec.11 of RTI Act.

 

This should be clarified by a full bench CIC decision to avoid such interpretations by individual PIOs and DOPT.

Those who wanted to make a vigorous follow up can file RTI Application to DOPT CPIO and seek such information as record.

Information solicited:

1)Please provide existing guidelines/stipulations/OMs that state on providing of CC TV footage to individual applicants by Public authorities.

2)Please provide whether there is any inconsistency in Information technology Act that bars Public Authorities in CCTV footage under RTI Act.

3.Please provide number of RTI applications received by DOPT seeking such information and response by CPIO, DOPT denying such footage.

4.Please provide number of letters received seeking guidance on such providing of CCTV footage by any Public authorities and copy of such response from DOPT to that Public authority.

Edited by G.L.N. Prasad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
bhasyam

Sir,

 

Filed RTI with DOPT as per your guidelines.Even IC's are not clear about classification of CCTV footage Data.In one of the hearing at SIC,the IC stated that miscreants may misuse CCTV footage containing images of lady staff at work and public present at their office

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Every PIO comes out with such apprehensions for not providing information, but mere apprehensions are not justifications. Once the purpose is known, no one can deny information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Above all he has stated that Information Technology Act has prohibited the sharing of CCTV footage

 

Please read Sec 22 of the RTI Act 2005:

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 7%]22[/TD]

[TD=width: 6%] [/TD]

[TD=width: 6%][/TD]

[TD=width: 81%, colspan: 2]The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

As I understand ("any other law for the time being in force') the stipulations do not state about future laws and each PIO interprets this in his own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

What is the meaning of "any other law for time being in force" ?

 

 

This question was answered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

 

Madras High Court

J.Parthiban vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By on 27 March, 2008

THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN

 

W.P.Nos.36423, 30273, 33336, 34120, 36968,

37018, 37026, 37876, 37071, 37757, 37630, 37357

to 37359 of 2007,

 

“ Laws for the time being in force” - The phraseology “ laws for the time being in force” would necessarily mean laws in force from time-to-time and not laws in force only at a fixed point of time. The expression “for the time being” denotes time indefinite and refers to indefinite state of facts which will arise in future and which may vary from time-to-time.

 

=============

 

It is also not possible to accept the submission that the expression ''for the time being in force'' will have a nexus with the date of enactment of the Airports Authority of India Act. The expression ''for the time being in force'' merely implies that whenever the question of acquiring the land for the Airport Authority arises, the relevant corresponding laws of acquisition in force at that time can be resorted to. This is the clear thrust of section 19. Its scope and ambit cannot be circumscribed and frozen only to the point of time in the year 1994, when the Airports Authority of India Act was enacted. If such was the intention of the Parliament in framing Section 19, Section 19 would have employed a different phraseology, namely, ''laws at present in force'' instead of the phraseology ''laws for the time being in force". The phraseology ''laws for the time being in force" would necessarily mean laws in force from time to time and not laws in force only at a fixed point of time, i.e. the date on which the Airports Authority of India Act was enacted. The expression ''for the time being" denotes time indefinite and refers to indefinite state of facts which will arise in future and which may vary from time to time.

 

==============

 

I also had to search and understand this because one IC in APIC - in the first batch of ICs - interpreted it as all those laws which were in force at the time of the enactment of the RTI Act 2005 !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
rtipatrol

Sir,

I've an hearing at SIC regarding the CCTV footage .Earlier PIO has stated that that Information Technology Act has prohibited the sharing of CCTV footage and it's third party information.

 

The hearing is scheduled on 11.10.2017 and today PIO has posted an additional reply stating that CCTV camera's are not working and it's under repair for the last 6 months.

 

Lot of discrepancies in the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

File fresh application and seek information as follows:

Information solicited:

1)Please provide the material facts on record as certified copies that disclose that CCTVs are not functioning and under repair from 6 months.

2)Please provide the copy of letter addressed to higher officials/Maintenance company complaining about malfunctioning, copies of all letters made for follow up to keep the CCTVs functioning.

3.Please provide copy of the bill/expenses disclosing the costs incurred and present status.

4)Please provide the date of installation, the specific dates on which CCTV failed to function, the dates on which the repairs were made, and the days in which CCTV functioned properly.

5)Please provide a copy of circular/directive/order/notification that states about maintenance of CCTV cameras and trouble shooting exercises, follow up etc.

6)Please provide the name of manufacturer, total costs for such coverage with copies of such bill for that expenditure.

 

As far as present hearing is concerned parties can not approbate and reprobate and take different stand as per convenience and this disclose the deliberate and malafide intentions of the PIO. File written arguments well in advance through mail and through post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
koteswararaonerella

under IT act only police and investigating officers are authorized to collect and use the CCTV data. section -11 cannot be applied in this case as there will be lot of public in thasildhar office for various purposes and it is not possible to take their consents on one side and secondly as per section-11 "ONLY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY ANY PARTY TO THE PIO WHOSE DISCLOSURE ONLY NEED IS CONSENT" and not like CCTV footage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
jj99

Keeping the arguments of both sides in mind and having noted that the Appellant is seeking

information in order to expose corrupt practices of RPF personnel, the Commission directs the concerned PIO

to allow the Appellant to watch the footage of only those CCTV cameras which have been placed in full view

of the public in his (PIO’s) presence only (only for the period of 5 days before the date of RTI

application) and if the Appellant’s allegation against RPF personnel (taking bribes from illegal hawkers) is

found to be true from this footage, to give a copy of only that visual of the RPF person/s committing the

misdeed, to the Appellant separately on a CD. This exercise to be completed by 25 June, 2011.

CCTV FOOTAGE.pdf.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

The tenacity of appellant deserves great appreciation, as he has personally attended hearing and convinced IC inspite of stiff resistance by PIO on flimsy grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
bhasyam
Ultimately, what ever was stipulated as information under RTI Act, and CCTV footage is a Public record. If any PIO states that it is third party information, he has to follow stipulations under Sec.11 and obtain their comments. Without invoking Sec.11, denial mentioning some other act is not proper. The denial should always be under Sec.8 sub sections alone and not any internal guidelines or other Acts.

 

 

This should be clarified by a full bench CIC decision to avoid such interpretations by individual PIOs and DOPT.

Those who wanted to make a vigorous follow up can file RTI Application to DOPT CPIO and seek such information as record.

Information solicited:

1)Please provide existing guidelines/stipulations/OMs that state on providing of CC TV footage to individual applicants by Public authorities.

2)Please provide whether there is any inconsistency in Information technology Act that bars Public Authorities in CCTV footage under RTI Act.

3.Please provide number of RTI applications received by DOPT seeking such information and response by CPIO, DOPT denying such footage.

4.Please provide number of letters received seeking guidance on such providing of CCTV footage by any Public authorities and copy of such response from DOPT to that Public authority.

 

Received Reply from CPIO as follows. Looking for link to search RTI applications as mentioned in the reply

 

DOPT1.jpg

Edited by bhasyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

The bold and underlined information was as follows:

'Hence no reply denying such footage was generated by any CPIO in DOPT"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
bhasyam
The bold and underlined information was as follows:

'Hence no reply denying such footage was generated by any CPIO in DOPT"

 

Sir,

 

As I understand ,CPIO of DOPT has transferred the application seeking CCTV footage to CPIO of other public Authority,The reply provided by other PA's is unknown.

 

It's like CPIO, DOPT is not connected with the 5 applications and hence the question of reply did not arise.'Hence no reply denying such footage was generated by any CPIO in DOPT"

 

Correct me If I'm wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

100& correct. You have to read the interpretation as you wish to find some grounds to PIOs, to beat such interpretations as they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
bhasyam
100& correct. You have to read the interpretation as you wish to find some grounds to PIOs, to beat such interpretations as they like.

 

Another reply from PIO

 

1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • rohitab
      By rohitab
      Once the RTI application is filed the records available with CPIO/respondent authority, cannot be destroyed as per the retention and removal schedule.- CIC
      CIC recorded that the PIO of Department of Posts without application of mind denied the information on points under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The appellant had sought the copy of all cameras (CCTV) video recording of head post office Bhavnagar.
      Since video recording is covered under information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. If the CCTV footage is held by the respondent authority, it is his duty to share it, except when the denial is justified under any provisions of exemptions mentioned in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
      Once the RTI application is filed the records available with CPIO/respondent authority, cannot be destroyed as per the retention and removal schedule. In this case, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which means they have the CCTV footage with them. Therefore, commission recorded that the respondent authority is directed to provide CD with required CCTV footage and the information sought by the appellant.
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel

Announcements



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy