The Madras High Court has ordered the Railway Mail Service to hand over CCTV footage to a man trying to trace the sender of fabricated complaints, holding that Postal Manual restrictions cannot be applied mechanically in the age of the RTI Act.
Madurai: Holding that a State cannot sit on material that a citizen needs to prosecute a wrongdoer, the Madras High Court has directed the Railway Mail Service (RMS) to give CCTV footage to a petitioner who wants to identify the person sending fabricated complaints in his missing father’s name, observing that old restrictive clauses in the Postal Manual “cannot be literally or mechanically applied any longer” [Abishek v. Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service].
Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the RMS to furnish the details sought in a pen drive within two weeks. The petitioner, Advocate Abishek, was represented by M. Nandhini Priyadharshini, and the respondents by Central Government Standing Counsel V. Malaiyendran.
The petitioner’s case
According to the petition, Abishek’s father is missing. Around the same time, the petitioner began receiving complaints against himself and his family in his father’s name. The complaints, which he describes as being in poor taste, were dispatched through the Madurai RMS post office on October 6, 2026. He moved the Court seeking directions to the Senior Superintendent of the RMS to preserve and furnish the CCTV footage recorded on that date, contending that it would help him unravel the truth and identify the person behind them. These are the petitioner’s assertions, and the Court has not examined who sent the complaints.
What the government advocate argued
The government advocate submitted that information of this kind could be furnished only in terms of Clause 152 of the Postal Manual and not otherwise. That clause provides for post office or mail office records to be produced, and the information in them given, on the written order of a police officer investigating a cognizable case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of an Excise officer empowered to investigate offences under an Excise Act. It also says that only those entries relating to the person or persons charged with the offence should be disclosed.
The legal position
The Court turned to Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which gives the Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act and any other law for the time being in force. Section 8 of the Act lists the limited grounds on which information may be refused. Reading the two together, the Court held that the restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual will have to give way, and that a department cannot refuse to part with material unless the case falls within the exceptions in Section 8.
What the Court said
“We are living in the RTI age. Clauses restricting the furnishing of information that were incorporated in the Postal Manual aeons ago cannot be literally or mechanically applied any longer. If one’s rights have been breached, he is entitled to seek legal remedy. If one can criminally prosecute the person responsible for such breach and the identity of such person can be established only with the material available with the State, it is the duty of the officials to furnish such material to the affected person.”
The Court added that withholding such material would frustrate the affected person’s right to prosecute:
“If such a material is withheld, the right to prosecute would be frustrated. The authority would be justified in refusing to part with the information only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances have to be exceptional and fall within Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Noting that the petitioner’s name was being tarnished by the complaints and that he could not identify the sender unless the footage was made available, the Court directed the RMS to supply the details in a pen drive within two weeks.
Case Title: Abishek v. Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service (case number not available)
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Order: Not stated
Appearances: M. Nandhini Priyadharshini for the petitioner; V. Malaiyendran, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents