The Central Information Commission has directed the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of NCT of Delhi to share statistical information about CCTV cameras installed in a Municipal Corporation of Delhi ward, holding that citizens are entitled to know how extensively public spaces are under surveillance, even if exact locations remain confidential.
The order, passed by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari on 19 November 2025, came on a second appeal filed by Girdhar against the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD. The RTI application, filed online on 30 January 2024, sought details of CCTV cameras installed in MCD Ward No. 262, including how many cameras had been installed by the Delhi government or its departments, their locations, how many were not functioning, the location of the control room, access to footage by ordinary citizens and the period for which recordings are preserved.
In its reply dated 22 February 2024, the PIO stated that CCTV cameras were installed constituency-wise rather than ward-wise and declined to share specific information. The PWD invoked exemptions under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, arguing that disclosure would endanger the security of the state and the safety of individuals. The department added that the number of working cameras could not be provided because maintenance was an ongoing process, and said that CCTV footage could be accessed by the local police, area MLA, RWA representatives or house owners in certain situations, with actual footage shared only with the police on the basis of an FIR, the concerned MLA, or under court directions.
Unsatisfied with the response, the appellant filed a first appeal on 5 April 2024. The First Appellate Authority, however, disposed of the appeal on 25 April 2024, recording that the appellant had not attended the hearing and that the PIO’s replies were proper and in line with the questions asked.
The matter then reached the CIC as a second appeal on 20 May 2024. At the hearing held on 13 November 2025, the appellant was represented by Ganga Bisht, while the PWD was represented by Savita Ray, PIO-cum-Executive Engineer (E&M), and Amit Kumar, Assistant Engineer.
The appellant’s representative argued that information on the working status of CCTV cameras in a locality is directly linked to the safety of residents and ought to be disclosed in the public interest. She contended that refusal to share such information reflected a casual and non-transparent approach by the public authority.
The PWD reiterated its stand that cameras were installed constituency-wise and not ward-wise and maintained that disclosing details would pose a security risk. It relied on sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act to justify withholding the information.
In its decision, the Commission drew a distinction between statistical information and sensitive operational details. It observed that citizens have a right to know how many CCTV cameras have been installed in their areas, as this is statistical data, while the disclosure of exact locations could legitimately raise security concerns. The order notes that information about the number of cameras, their general placement and their functioning is crucial to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, especially when surveillance systems are installed using public money.
The Commission underlined that sharing such information allows people to understand how the government monitors public spaces and helps reduce fears of misuse of surveillance. When residents know that cameras are being properly maintained and are functional, it can increase their sense of safety and confidence in the system.
“It is worthwhile to mention that accountability blossoms where transparency is allowed to shine,” the Commission observed, stressing that general information about the total number of cameras in a ward and the number of cameras working in a particular area should normally be disclosed in the larger public interest. At the same time, it accepted that the precise positioning of cameras could be treated as sensitive and therefore denied under the cited exemptions, while broader and generic information could and should be shared.
Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide statistical and generic information in respect of points 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI query. Any portions legitimately exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted or severed. The information has to be supplied to the appellant within four weeks of receiving the order, and the First Appellate Authority has been asked to ensure compliance.
With these directions, the second appeal was disposed of. The ruling adds to a growing body of CIC decisions that push public authorities to be more open about surveillance infrastructure while still protecting genuinely sensitive operational details.
Case Details : Girdhar vs PIO, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department (GNCTD), 12th Floor, MSO Building, New Delhi–110002.
