CCTV Footage recording of SBI branch was denied u/s 8(1)(e), (j) & (g) stating that it may compromise with security - Appellant: she wanted the video footage to prove the complaints made by a person - CIC: provide the footage where appellant figures
1. The appellant, Ms. Reena Richard, submitted RTI application dated 26 August 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking CCTV Footage recording of Thakur Village Branch, Mumbai for the period between 23.8.2013 to 26.8.2013 (Both inside and outside the Bank).
2. Vide reply dated 10 September 2013, the CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(e), (j) & (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 9 October 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that she had not been provided the information sought for by the CPIO concerned and reiterated that she wanted the video footage to prove the complaints made by Shri Manoj Palav on 23.8.2013. Vide order dated 23 October 2013, the FAA upheld CPIO’s decision.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that she had sought the above mentioned information as when she went to the said branch on one afternoon and she witnessed the bank officials behaving rudely with the customers who had come to the Bank to remit money in nonhome branches. The bank officials told that they did not accept remittance from the public for nonhome transactions for an amount less than Rs.10,000/against which one Mr. Manoj Palav gave a written complaint dated 23.8.2013. The appellant had also signed as witness on this complaint. She sought the CCTV footage to prove the complaint in their favour but the CPIO concerned had denied the information u/s 8(1)(e), (j) & (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondents submitted that the appellant had not specified as to how she was connected to the information sought because the Branch could not locate any transaction done by the applicant at that branch on these days. they also submitted that the CCTV footage contained the images of other customers doing their transactions and disclosure of that would result in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of third parties. They also added that CCTV cameras had been installed at branches as a security measure and the disclosure of the information sought may result in the Bank getting exposed to the security risks. They also submitted that there were a number of CCTV cameras installed at that branch and she has not specified the location of the counter. Moreover, Shri Manoj Palav had already withdrawn the complaint submitted at the Branch for which the appellant was seeking the CCTV
6. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the respondents to check the presence of the appellant in the CCTV footage of 23.8.2013 and provide the footage where she figures upon payment of fees prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Ms. Reena Richard v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000236