Cctv footage cannot be destroyed, once RTI is files

Cctv footage cannot be destroyed, once RTI is files
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/107942
J B Narelav. PIO, Department of Posts
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought copy of all cameras (CCTV) video recording of headpost office ground floor of dated. 07.11.2016 (timing 10:00 AM to 12:00
PM) in CD format, copy of list showing names of Leave reserve clerks (RC PA) of Bhavnagar HO, details of each officials of Bhavnagar HO with date, since when
working with their present branch and copy of report made against me by I/C Postmaster, Bhavnagar HO. The CPIO on 08.12.2016 gave a point wise reply
and denied the information on point nos. 1 and 4 under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. The FAA also upheld the CPIOs reply. Not having received any
information on point no. 1 and 4, the appellant approached this Commission.
Decision :
3. On perusal of the records and submission made by the respondent authority, the Commission notes that the CPIO, with out application of mind,
denied the information on point nos. 1 and 4 under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. 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.

4. The Commission observes that exemption given under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is claimed only when the disclosure of such information would
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender. Here in this case the CPIO has simply denied the information without application
of his mind.
1. The Honble Delhi High Court in WP(C)/3114/2007 in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commission and others held that mere existence of an
investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information: the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reason as to why the
release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered
should be reasonable and based on some material Sans this consideration, section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging
demands for information. In my case you have only shown that investigation is pending and there is no material with you to show that the disclosure of the
information would hamper the investigation process.
Accordingly, the above decision is clearly applicable to the facts of my case.
2. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri Sathya Narayanan vs Reserve Bank of India dated 24.08.2011 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001239/SG/14214
held that unless the CPIO establishes that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation, the information cannot be refused. It was
also held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information.
3. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri P. Sivakumarvs Syndicate Bank dated 09.03.2012 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG/15147 held that
if the intention of the legislature was to deny the information where the investigation is pending, the words which would impede the process would
become redundant.
5. 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, the respondent authority is directed to provide CD with required CCTV footage and the information sought by the appellant on point Nos. 1 and 4 of the
RTI application, within 15 days from the date of re ceipt of this Order.
6. The Commission further directs Mr. N.B. Kunbara,CPIO, tos how-causewhy maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for illegally denying the
information