Central Information Commission (CIC): Central Information Commission, while rejecting two separate applications filed by RTI applicant, said that the details of CCTV cameras installed in the premises of the Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court cannot be disclosed as the revealed information might pose a threat to the security of the Courts. The applicant wanted some details about the CCTV cameras installed in the Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court respectively, such as, the footage for a certain period and the total number of such cameras installed but though the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Supreme Court informed him about the number of cameras installed, denied his other pleas claiming that disclosure of the footage is covered under exemption given in section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information Act. The CPIO of the Delhi High Court also invoked the same provisions to deny all information about the CCTV camera. CIC, upholding the said view held, that “The details of the CCTV cameras installed to protect the Supreme Court of India as the High Court have a clear security angle. The knowledge about those cameras such as whether they are functioning or not and the footage from those cameras can be misused and might compromise the security of the Courts. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that no such information should be disclosed.” (Assem Takyar v. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, decided on August 06, 2013)1
2. We heard both the parties.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had wanted some details about the CCTV cameras installed in the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court respectively , such as, the footage for a certain period and the total number of such cameras installed. The CPIO of the Supreme Court had informed him that, in all, some 144 of such cameras were installed but refused to disclose the footage by claiming exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CPIO of the Delhi High Court had invoked the same provisions to deny all information about the CCTV camera though. Not satisfied with this response, the Appellant had preferred an appeal against the orders before respective Appellate Authorities. The Appellate Authority in both the cases had found the request for information unacceptable as the disclosure of the information might pose a threat to the security of the Supreme Court and upheld the order of the respective CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant mainly argued that the purpose behind his request was to find out if the CCTV cameras were in working order and he was not particularly interested in getting the footage. Although he had not asked for this information in such detail in his original RTI application, we think it may not be prudent to inform him or anybody else about the working condition of the cameras. The details of the CCTV cameras installed to protect the Supreme Court of India as the High Court have a clear security angle. The knowledge about those cameras such as whether they are functioning or not and the footage from those cameras can be misused and might compromise the security of the Courts. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that no such information should be disclosed. CIC/SM/A/2013/000411 & 412
5. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2013/000411 & 412
Print Page
Central Information Commission
Mr. Aseem Takyar vs High Court on 6 August, 2013
2. We heard both the parties.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had wanted some details about the CCTV cameras installed in the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court respectively , such as, the footage for a certain period and the total number of such cameras installed. The CPIO of the Supreme Court had informed him that, in all, some 144 of such cameras were installed but refused to disclose the footage by claiming exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CPIO of the Delhi High Court had invoked the same provisions to deny all information about the CCTV camera though. Not satisfied with this response, the Appellant had preferred an appeal against the orders before respective Appellate Authorities. The Appellate Authority in both the cases had found the request for information unacceptable as the disclosure of the information might pose a threat to the security of the Supreme Court and upheld the order of the respective CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant mainly argued that the purpose behind his request was to find out if the CCTV cameras were in working order and he was not particularly interested in getting the footage. Although he had not asked for this information in such detail in his original RTI application, we think it may not be prudent to inform him or anybody else about the working condition of the cameras. The details of the CCTV cameras installed to protect the Supreme Court of India as the High Court have a clear security angle. The knowledge about those cameras such as whether they are functioning or not and the footage from those cameras can be misused and might compromise the security of the Courts. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that no such information should be disclosed. CIC/SM/A/2013/000411 & 412
5. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2013/000411 & 412
No comments:
Post a Comment