The Indian Express: Gandhinagar: Saturday,
July 19, 2025.
The man's application was earlier rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and also because he was an accused in the case.
The applicant had
first challenged the PIO order before the Appellate Authority under the Act.
The State Information Commission has directed a police station in Ahmedabad to provide a gambling case accused with the CCTV footage related to his arrest while ensuring the details of others in the video are obscured.
State Information Commissioner Manoj Patel gave this order to the Rakhial police station in response to an appeal by Mohammed Sufiyan Rajput, a resident of the area.
According to the details, following a raid in February 2024, Rajput along with others were arrested for alleged violation of the Gambling Act and was taken to the police station.
Rajput had sought CCTV footage of the police station pertaining to the period when he and the other accused were taken there.
Rajput’s application was earlier rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and also because he was an accused in the case.
Section 8 of the RTI Act is related to exemption from disclosure of certain information. Its Section 8(1)(j) states, “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information…”
The applicant had first challenged the PIO order before the Appellate Authority under the Act. However, the appeal was not allowed by the appellate authority, following which Rajput moved a second appeal before the information panel.
Deciding upon the appeal, the State Information Commissioner, in his July 8 order, noted: “At this juncture, in the interest of justice, the Commission finds it appropriate to provide the applicant’s footages free of cost by separating them and hiding others’ details. The Public Information Officer has agreed to this.”
The Commission ordered the PIO to provide the applicant the footage through RPAD (Registered Post Acknowledgement Due) mode.
An official of Rakhial police station said that following the Commission’s order, Rajput has been provided with the relevant CCTV footage.
The man's application was earlier rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and also because he was an accused in the case.
The State Information Commission has directed a police station in Ahmedabad to provide a gambling case accused with the CCTV footage related to his arrest while ensuring the details of others in the video are obscured.
State Information Commissioner Manoj Patel gave this order to the Rakhial police station in response to an appeal by Mohammed Sufiyan Rajput, a resident of the area.
According to the details, following a raid in February 2024, Rajput along with others were arrested for alleged violation of the Gambling Act and was taken to the police station.
Rajput had sought CCTV footage of the police station pertaining to the period when he and the other accused were taken there.
Rajput’s application was earlier rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and also because he was an accused in the case.
Section 8 of the RTI Act is related to exemption from disclosure of certain information. Its Section 8(1)(j) states, “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information…”
The applicant had first challenged the PIO order before the Appellate Authority under the Act. However, the appeal was not allowed by the appellate authority, following which Rajput moved a second appeal before the information panel.
Deciding upon the appeal, the State Information Commissioner, in his July 8 order, noted: “At this juncture, in the interest of justice, the Commission finds it appropriate to provide the applicant’s footages free of cost by separating them and hiding others’ details. The Public Information Officer has agreed to this.”
The Commission ordered the PIO to provide the applicant the footage through RPAD (Registered Post Acknowledgement Due) mode.
An official of Rakhial police station said that following the Commission’s order, Rajput has been provided with the relevant CCTV footage.
.JPG)
.JPG)
