Kerala High Court
Mari R vs The Central Information Commission ... on 5 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARI R.,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.RAMASUBBU, NORTH STREET, ARCHIPATTY, SAIL
MALAY,PANAVADAYAL CHATHRAM,SANKARAN COVIL,TIRUNELVELI
DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 629176
BY ADVS.
SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY
SHRI.SOMAN P.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE
REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, B-WING, 2ND
FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110067
2 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY
MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
3 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL
SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM SOUTHERN RAILWAY -
TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE, PIN
- 695014
BY ADV SHRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA), CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:91
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P9 orders passed by the Central Information Commission rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. The petitioner had sought the following information through an application dated 25.05.2023:
"The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I am the accused in FIR No 34 of 2020 of Thiruvananthapuram Railway Police Station and in order to produce before the jurisdictional magistrate court namely Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Thiruvananthapuram in CC No 81 of 2020 and the following information is applied under the RTI Act 2005.
1) Total number of CCTV cameras installed in platform no. 1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 and technical specification of the CCTV cameras installed in platform no.1.
2) Name and designation of the officer in charge of operation of CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs.
3) Name and designation of the officer in charge of the server in which data/images from CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Centrał Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs are stored.
4) Whether there is the option to manually controt the CCTV Cameras installed WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:91 in platform no.1 of Thiruvangnthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020
a) If yes, details of the CCTV cameras
5) Details of CCTV software used for CCTV Cameras installed in platform no.1 of Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020.
6) Digital copy of the recording from all CCTV cameras installed in Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020 between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs."
2. The Central Information Officer (CPIO) furnished a point-wise reply on 22.06.2023 as follows:
"1. Total 14 Numbers CCTV cameras are available on platform No. 1/Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station on 22-03-2020, in which Five cameras are fixed cameras and Nine are PTZ cameras.
2. Exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Yes. PTZ cameras can be manually operated.
5. Mirasys.
6. CCTV footages are being provided to Law enforcing agencies for evidentiary process, on production of FIR/case registration details for investigation purpose."
3. Against the said reply of the CPIO against information sought as point Nos. 2, 3 and 6, the petitioner preferred the first appeal in which the following order was passed on 18.09.2023:
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 4
2026:KER:91 "The appeal submitted by the appellant is verified. I went through the case carefully, duly calling for connected records and as Appellate Authority, I have ordered to furnish the required information to you. The information requested by you is herewith attached.
2. Sri. Sabu Jacob, Post Commander/RPF/Trivandrum Central on 22-03- 2020. (ii) Sri. Saji.P.John, HC/RPF/Trivandrum was on duty at CCTV control room between 12 Hrs and 13 Hrs. on 22.03.2020.
3. Sri. Sreekuttan, Sr. Section Engineer/ charge of the server in which data/images Tele/Wireless/ from CCTV Cameras installed in platform 22.03.2020.
6. CCTV footages are being provided to Law enforcing agencies for evidentiary process, on production of FIR/case registration details for investigation purpose as exemption from disclosure of information vide sec. 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act, 2005."
4. Aggrieved by the order passed in the first appeal, the petitioner approached the Central Information Commission. The Commission found no infirmity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and accordingly rejected the appeal. However, it was noticed that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent remained absent despite service of the hearing notice in advance, and the Commission also took serious note of the conduct of the 3rd respondent for remaining absent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P9 order is bad and also against the judgment of this Court in Jisal Rasak v. State of WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:91 Kerala [2019 (4) KHC 928], which held that the CCTV footage is "data" as defined under the IT Act and said electronic record produced for inspection of Court has to be regarded as documentary evidence and accused is entitled for a cloned digital copy of the same. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he, being an accused against whom the CCTV footage is being used, is entitled to get a copy of the same, for which the information was sought, and the refusal to grant the same is clearly illegal.
6. The statement filed on behalf of the respondents contends that the 1st respondent is not a necessary party and that they do not intend to contest the same. However, no statement has been filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent.
7. Taking note of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the statement stated above, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P9 to grant an opportunity to the parties to project their contentions. Accordingly, I direct the Central Information Commission to rehear Ext.P8 appeal with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. If the petitioner and the 3rd respondent do not cooperate with the 1st respondent, it will be open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:91 in accordance with law. A decision as directed above shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The impugned order is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE lsn WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:91 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED 25-05-2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF GMAIL COMPLAINT DATED 05-06-2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO 34 OF 2020 DATED 22-03-2020 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22-06-2023 NUMBERED VXP/535/RTI/25/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 2 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 2 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-09-2023 NUMBERED V/X/RT/APPEAL/RPF/2023 OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF SECOND APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 WITH FILE NO.
CIC/SORLY/A/2023/655706 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 12-03-2025 IN FILE NO. CIC/SORLY/A/2023/655706 OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1