Case at a Glance
An advocate whose father is said to be missing began receiving complaints in his father’s name against himself and his family, one of which was dispatched through the Madurai RMS Post Office on 6 October 2026. He sought the CCTV footage of the booking counters for that day to identify the sender, but the postal authority said information could be released only under Clause 152 of the Postal Manual. The Madras High Court held that restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual cannot be applied literally or mechanically any longer, as Section 22 of the RTI Act gives the Act overriding effect. It directed the footage to be furnished on a pen drive within two weeks, at the petitioner’s cost.
The petitioner, a practising advocate, stated that his father is missing and that complaints were being sent in his father’s name against the petitioner and other family members, which the Court described as being “in very poor taste.” One such complaint was dispatched through the Madurai RMS Post Office on 6 October 2026. On 12 October 2026, he asked the Senior Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, for the CCTV footage of that day, particularly of the entrance and booking counters, so he could identify who booked the complaint and take legal action. He had also lodged a complaint with the Koodal Nagar Police Station.
He argued that without the footage, the police were unlikely to act on a complaint not backed by material. The Central Government Standing Counsel contended that information could be furnished only in terms of Clause 152 of the Postal Manual and not otherwise.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a postal authority refuse to give a citizen CCTV footage from a post office by relying on a restrictive clause of the Postal Manual, despite the Right to Information Act, 2005?
Why the Postal Manual Yields to the RTI Act
Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that the restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual can no longer be applied literally or mechanically, observing: “We are living in the RTI age.” Section 3 of the RTI Act confers on all citizens the right to information, and Section 22 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Court concluded that the restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual “will have to give way.”
Information may be withheld only in exceptional circumstances that fall within Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Court further held that under Section 2(j)(iv), information includes material held in electronic form, such as video, so CCTV footage can be furnished on a pen drive. The order does not cite precedents and does not reproduce Clause 152 of the Postal Manual.
What the Court Actually Held
- Restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual cannot be applied literally or mechanically in the face of the RTI Act.
- By Section 22, the RTI Act overrides inconsistent laws, and information can be withheld only in exceptional circumstances within Section 8.
- CCTV footage is information in electronic form under Section 2(j)(iv) and can be furnished on a pen drive.
- The respondent must provide the CCTV footage of 6 October 2026 within two weeks, with the petitioner bearing the cost; the writ petition was allowed without costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It recognises CCTV footage held by public authorities as accessible information under the RTI Act.
- It limits reliance on internal departmental manuals to refuse information.
- It offers a practical remedy to victims of anonymous or impersonated complaints sent by post.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Citizens
- You can seek CCTV footage from public authorities such as post offices; it is information under Section 2(j)(iv) of the RTI Act.
- Ask promptly, since footage may not be retained for long; the petitioner applied within six days.
- Expect to bear the cost of copying the footage.
For Counsel
- Rely on Section 22 of the RTI Act to counter refusals based on departmental manuals.
- Confine the authority to the exemptions in Section 8.
- Seek a time-bound direction, as the Court granted two weeks.
Key Takeaways
- The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition on 23 October 2026.
- The Postal Manual’s restrictive clauses must give way to the RTI Act.
- CCTV footage of 6 October 2026 at the Madurai RMS Post Office is to be given on a pen drive.
- The petitioner bears the cost of furnishing the footage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CCTV footage covered by the RTI Act?
Yes. The Court held that under Section 2(j)(iv), information includes material in electronic form such as video, so CCTV footage can be furnished on a pen drive.
Can a department refuse information by relying on its own manual?
The Court held that the Postal Manual’s restrictive clauses cannot be applied mechanically, since Section 22 of the RTI Act gives it overriding effect; information can be withheld only under Section 8.
What was the deadline given by the Court?
The respondent was directed to furnish the footage within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
Conclusion
In M. Abishek v. Senior Superintendent, RMS, the Madras High Court applied the RTI Act’s overriding effect to a common situation: a citizen trying to trace the sender of a mischievous complaint. Internal rules of a department cannot block access to information that the RTI Act makes available.
Practical takeaway: When a public authority refuses CCTV footage citing an internal manual, point to Sections 2(j)(iv), 8 and 22 of the RTI Act, and approach the High Court if prompt action is needed.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com