Thiruvananthapuram: The Kerala State Information Commission has been inundated with appeals seeking CCTV footage from police stations across the state. Among the applicants is a police officer fighting a legal battle to disprove a custodial death allegation raised against him two years ago.

Most of the dozen-odd appeals before the Commission have been filed by ordinary people who believe they were denied justice. The release of footage from Kunnamkulam police station under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has encouraged many petitioners.

Although Information Commissioner Dr K M Dileep issued a favourable order on an appeal filed by Youth Congress leader Sujith in the Kunnamkulam case, police initially refused to release the footage, citing technical reasons. Sujith later approached Information Commissioner Dr Sonichan P Joseph, who ruled in his favour, leading to the eventual release of the footage.

Superintendents of Police (SPs) or Commissioners are authorised to decide on releasing CCTV footage and represent the police before the Information Commissioner during appeals. The Commission has also ordered the release of footage from other stations following appeals, though petitioners are often asked to specify the exact time and duration required.

Former state Information Commissioner Dr A  Abdul Hakeem said he had, in some cases, ordered the screening of footage for petitioners and their advocates at police stations.

ADGP warns police to exercise caution over CCTV footage
In September last year, ADGP S Sreejith issued a circular from police headquarters warning officers to handle CCTV footage from stations with caution. The directive followed the release of footage to petitioner K P Ouseph in a custodial torture case at Peechi police station.

The ADGP told district police chiefs that the released footage could spread on social media and go viral. When Ouseph first sought the visuals, police opposed the application, and the ADGP personally argued before the Information Commission that releasing such material could expose survivors in POCSO cases, women giving confidential domestic abuse statements, and witnesses in Maoist cases.

The Commission proposed releasing the footage after removing sensitive portions, but police objected that this could lead to complaints of tampering. Eventually, the Commission ordered the release of the footage after obscuring the faces of protected individuals.

Soon after, the ADGP circulated the directive advising officers to exercise caution regarding the release of police station footage.