Case Law Details
Harshavardini Ranya Vs CISF Comandants Kempegowda International Airport (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to the authorities of the CISF Unit, Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, to furnish a complete, continuous and uninterrupted copy of the CCTV footage recorded from 4:30 p.m. on 03.03.2025 to 6:00 a.m. on 04.03.2025. The request covered all relevant security cameras and angles showing the petitioner’s movement from disembarkation from Emirates Flight No. EK-566, including the aerobridge, immigration area, duty-free area, baggage retrieval area, customs clearance area, the alleged search, seizure, mahazar proceedings, and exit from the airport. The petitioner also sought directions that the footage be supplied without any missing duration, deletion, interruption, overwriting, editing, selective extraction, alteration or tampering, and in its original/native electronic format along with particulars such as date, time, camera location, camera identifier, storage details, chain of custody particulars, and appropriate certification.
The petitioner contended that the entire CCTV footage for the relevant period had not been made available despite the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in WP No.9798 of 2025.
Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the entire CCTV footage was available with respondent No.1 and that the petitioner could approach respondent No.1 to receive a copy of the footage at a mutually convenient time after prior intimation.
Taking note of this submission, the Karnataka High Court permitted the petitioner or the petitioner’s representative to call upon respondent No.1 at 11:30 a.m. on 15.07.2026 to receive a copy of the CCTV footage.
With the above observation, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court further held that, in view of the dismissal of the main petition, the pending interlocutory applications did not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of them.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. Sri.Madhu N. Rao., learned counsel accepts notice for respondents No.4 and 5.
2. Notice to respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with, since they are not required to be heard in the matter.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents. more particularly the concerned authorities of the CISF Unit, Kempegowda International Airport. Bengaluru, to furnish to the Petitioner a complete, continuous and uninterrupted copy of the CCTV footage recorded at Kempegowda International Airport from 4:30 p.m. on 03.03.2025 to 6:00 a.m. on 04.03.2025, from all security cameras and all relevant angles covering the movement of the Petitioner, Smt. Harshavardhini Radhanya, from the moment she disembarked from Emirates Flight No. EK-566, including her passage through the aerobridge, immigration area, duty-free area, baggage retrieval area, customs clearance area, alleged search, seizure, mahazar proceedings, and until her exit from the airport premises (at Annexure-‘A’ & ‘B’);
ii. Direct the Respondents to furnish the aforesaid CCTV footage without any missing time duration, deletion, interruption, overwriting, editing, selective extraction, alteration or tampering of any nature whatsoever (at Annexure-‘A’ & ‘B’);
iii. Direct the Respondents to furnish the aforesaid CCTV footage in its original/native electronic format, along with necessary particulars including date, time, camera location, camera number/identifier, storage details and chain of custody particulars, and with appropriate certification as contemplated under law (at Annexure-‘A’ & ‘B’);
iv. Pass such other order, writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire CCTV footage commencing from 04.30 p.m. on 03.03.2025 to 06.00 a.m. on 04.03.2025 has not been made available to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 02.04.2025 in WP No.9798 of 2025.
5. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the entire CCTV footage is available with respondent No.1 and the petitioner can call upon respondent No.1 to receive a copy thereof at a time convenient to respondent No.1 with prior information to respondent No.1.
6. In that view of the matter, petitioner or representative of the petitioner is permitted to call upon respondent No.1 at 11.30 a.m. on 15.07.2026 to receive a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage.
7. With the above observation, the petition stands dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending IA’s does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of.
Author Bio
