Times of India: Jabalpur: Sunday, July
5th, 2026.
The
Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000
each on the then public information officer (PIO) and the first appellate
authority of Gorakhpur police station in Jabalpur for denying CCTV footage
sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a man who alleged he was
illegally detained at the police station for more than 24 hours.
Ajit Singh Anand, a resident of Adarsh Nagar in Gwarighat, claimed that he was picked up by Gorakhpur police from his residence on June 20, 2023, and released the following day. He subsequently sought, under the RTI Act, copies of the station diary entries relating to his detention and release, along with CCTV footage covering the period he was present at the police station.
The then station house officer, acting as the public information officer, denied the request for CCTV footage. During the first appeal, the then additional superintendent of police also refused to provide the footage, citing the privacy of women and police mukhbirs (informants) who frequently visit the police station. However, even the records that the appellate authority directed to be furnished were not supplied.
Hearing the second appeal, the State Information Commission rejected the grounds cited for withholding the footage and directed the police to provide the applicant with CCTV footage relating to his presence at the police station after masking or concealing the identities of other individuals appearing in the recording.
The commission also directed the director general of police to ensure that all first appellate authorities under the police department dispose of RTI appeals within the time prescribed under the Act.
Ajit Singh Anand, a resident of Adarsh Nagar in Gwarighat, claimed that he was picked up by Gorakhpur police from his residence on June 20, 2023, and released the following day. He subsequently sought, under the RTI Act, copies of the station diary entries relating to his detention and release, along with CCTV footage covering the period he was present at the police station.
The then station house officer, acting as the public information officer, denied the request for CCTV footage. During the first appeal, the then additional superintendent of police also refused to provide the footage, citing the privacy of women and police mukhbirs (informants) who frequently visit the police station. However, even the records that the appellate authority directed to be furnished were not supplied.
Hearing the second appeal, the State Information Commission rejected the grounds cited for withholding the footage and directed the police to provide the applicant with CCTV footage relating to his presence at the police station after masking or concealing the identities of other individuals appearing in the recording.
The commission also directed the director general of police to ensure that all first appellate authorities under the police department dispose of RTI appeals within the time prescribed under the Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
