Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
In a key ruling, the Gujarat State Information Commission has directed Rakhial police station to provide CCTV footage to an RTI applicant arrested in a gambling case, but after masking the identities of other accused persons.
Mohammed Sufiyan Rajput,
arrested on Feb 25, 2024, filed an RTI on March 19 seeking footage showing
entry and exit of all accused at the police station. The public information
officer (PIO) denied the request under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, citing potential
interference with investigation.
Rajput's first appeal was rejected by the deputy commissioner of police, Zone 5. He then approached the commission on July 16, 2024, demanding the footage and penal action against the PIO.
During the hearing, the PIO argued that the footage could not be shared due to the presence of other accused. However, the commission observed that "the information related to the applicant could be segregated and shared without compromising others' privacy." The state information commission, in its final order on July 8 this year, directed the PIO "to provide the relevant CCTV footage to Rajput free of cost, after masking other individuals' identities, within 30 days by RPAD". It also directed the PIO to submit a compliance report. Rajput, however, expressed dissatisfaction, "What will I do with a masked video footage? How will I fight my innocence?"
RTI advocate Pankti Jog of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel insists that the nature of information sought by Rajput relates to issues of governance, public duties and responsibilities, "A masked video footage is like providing a blank page under RTI. When someone seeks information, they seek it as proof. If they do not get meaningful information, how will they pursue justice?"
Former central information commissioner and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi added, "The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person. If the public body believes masked footage is sufficient, would it provide the same to Parliament or state legislature? I think the complete footage should be provided to the citizen."
Inspector B G Chetaria confirmed the footage was sent via registered post aknowledgment due (RPAD) following the commission's order but claimed ignorance about whether Rajput received it. Rajput, however, alleged he never got the video. "Since I did not receive the masked footage, I did not sign an acknowledgement."
In a key ruling, the Gujarat State Information Commission has directed Rakhial police station to provide CCTV footage to an RTI applicant arrested in a gambling case, but after masking the identities of other accused persons.
Rajput's first appeal was rejected by the deputy commissioner of police, Zone 5. He then approached the commission on July 16, 2024, demanding the footage and penal action against the PIO.
During the hearing, the PIO argued that the footage could not be shared due to the presence of other accused. However, the commission observed that "the information related to the applicant could be segregated and shared without compromising others' privacy." The state information commission, in its final order on July 8 this year, directed the PIO "to provide the relevant CCTV footage to Rajput free of cost, after masking other individuals' identities, within 30 days by RPAD". It also directed the PIO to submit a compliance report. Rajput, however, expressed dissatisfaction, "What will I do with a masked video footage? How will I fight my innocence?"
RTI advocate Pankti Jog of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel insists that the nature of information sought by Rajput relates to issues of governance, public duties and responsibilities, "A masked video footage is like providing a blank page under RTI. When someone seeks information, they seek it as proof. If they do not get meaningful information, how will they pursue justice?"
Former central information commissioner and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi added, "The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person. If the public body believes masked footage is sufficient, would it provide the same to Parliament or state legislature? I think the complete footage should be provided to the citizen."
Inspector B G Chetaria confirmed the footage was sent via registered post aknowledgment due (RPAD) following the commission's order but claimed ignorance about whether Rajput received it. Rajput, however, alleged he never got the video. "Since I did not receive the masked footage, I did not sign an acknowledgement."
.JPG)
.JPG)
