When a Camera Becomes Evidence: Protecting Patient Privacy Without Silencing Public Accountability

 Sri Vijaya Puram | Public Interest Analysis

A request submitted by Dr Arun Kumar Mallik, Team Leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, to the Health Secretary has called for measures against what it describes as "unauthorized photography and videography" inside healthcare facilities of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, including inpatient departments. The request refers to YouTubers, social-media influencers, journalists, patient attendants and politicians.

The request follows a video circulating on social media concerning the Sub-District Hospital, Diglipur. Dr Mallik alleges that the recording involved unauthorised videography, obstruction of a duty medical officer, an impact on patient privacy and dissemination of false information concerning the recently upgraded hospital. He has also sought appropriate action from the police and administration.

These are serious allegations and should be investigated rather than assumed to be established facts.

But the controversy raises another public-interest question: when does a camera become an intrusion, and when can it become evidence?

Patient privacy must remain protected

Hospitals are fundamentally different from ordinary public spaces. Patients may be undergoing treatment in vulnerable circumstances, medical records may be visible, and confidential conversations and procedures may take place.

Recording identifiable patients without consent, interfering with emergency treatment or obstructing medical personnel cannot be justified merely by invoking journalism or public interest.

Clear safeguards for patient privacy, medical confidentiality, dignity and uninterrupted healthcare are therefore necessary. Dweep Tulika supports such protections.

However, protecting privacy does not necessarily require treating every camera as a threat.

A mobile phone can be an individual's only record

For an ordinary citizen, a mobile phone camera can be more than a tool for social-media content. It can become the only contemporaneous record of an incident.

Consider a patient attendant who claims that a public official refused to provide a service, that a confrontation occurred, that inappropriate conduct took place, or that a public facility was functioning in a manner that raised serious concerns.

The subsequent dispute may become one version against another:

Citizen's account versus institution's account.

The individual may have no access to official CCTV footage, no independent witness may be willing to come forward, and official records may not capture everything that occurred.

In such circumstances, an original contemporaneous recording may become an important piece of documentation—and, in some cases, the person's last available record of what happened.

Any proposed restriction should therefore distinguish between intrusive recording of patients and documentation of an interaction or event involving the person making the recording.

Recording is not the same as publication

Another distinction is equally important.

Recording, preserving an original recording as evidence, and publishing that recording publicly are three different acts.

A citizen may record an interaction solely to preserve evidence and never publish it.

A journalist may record material for verification and subsequently decide that it should not be published.

A newsroom may receive a recording and withhold it after determining that publication could expose a patient's identity or confidential medical information.

Treating all three activities as one category of "videography" risks eliminating an important distinction.

Indian evidence law also recognises the legal significance of electronic and digital records. Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic or digital, subject to Section 63. Section 63 provides statutory requirements concerning admissibility.

This does not mean every mobile-phone recording is automatically admissible evidence, nor does it establish an unrestricted right to record in every location.

It does, however, underline a basic reality:

Digital records can have evidentiary value.

The constitutional question is one of balance

Freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions within the circumstances specified by the Constitution.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether hospitals can regulate photography and videography.

They may need to.

The more important question is whether restrictions are specific, necessary and proportionate to the problem they seek to address.

A restriction on filming in a sensitive treatment area to protect identifiable patients is fundamentally different from a blanket rule that prevents an individual from documenting an interaction in which that individual is directly involved.

The wording of any proposed policy matters

The request submitted by Dr Mallik expressly refers not only to journalists and influencers but also to patient attendants and politicians. It also refers to previous concerns at GB Pant Hospital and ANIIMS and to an earlier administrative order concerning unauthorised entry and alleged intimidation of doctors, staff and students through photography, videography and related activities.

Those concerns may provide legitimate grounds for stronger hospital security.

But they also make precise rules important.

A workable policy should answer basic questions:

• What exactly constitutes "unauthorised" recording?
• Which areas are restricted?
• Is permission required everywhere or only in designated areas?
• Can a person record an interaction in which they are directly involved?
• Can evidence be preserved without publication?
• What happens when a recording concerns alleged misconduct?
• Who determines whether a recording violates hospital rules?
• What safeguards prevent privacy regulations from being used to suppress legitimate documentation?

These are questions of governance, not questions against the government.

Privacy and accountability need not be opposites

A balanced framework is possible.

Hospitals can prohibit filming identifiable patients without appropriate consent, protect medical records and confidential consultations, restrict recording in sensitive treatment areas and prevent interference with emergency care.

At the same time, clearly defined exceptions or procedures could address legitimate documentation of matters of public interest.

Such rules should be prominently displayed so patients, attendants, journalists and visitors understand where recording is prohibited and why.

Most importantly, the policy should regulate harmful conduct rather than assume that the presence of a camera itself constitutes harmful conduct.

The Diglipur video requires independent examination

The allegations surrounding the Diglipur video should also be treated with journalistic caution.

The communication describes the video as demonstrating obstruction, violation of patient privacy and dissemination of false information. Those are the sender's allegations, not facts established by the article.

A responsible newsroom should examine the complete recording, establish its date and location, determine what actually occurred, seek the hospital administration's response, provide the person who recorded the material an opportunity to respond, and establish precisely what information is alleged to be false.

If a police complaint or other official proceeding exists, that too should be independently confirmed.

The camera is not the enemy

A camera can document an accident.

It can preserve an interaction.

It can establish what was said.

It can record the condition of a public facility.

It can protect a citizen whose account might otherwise be disputed.

And sometimes, for a person standing alone against a much larger institution, the camera may be the only independent witness they possess.

That does not create a licence to invade a patient's privacy.

It does not justify obstructing doctors.

It does not justify entering restricted areas.

It does not justify sensationalising unverified allegations.

And it certainly does not justify publishing identifiable medical information simply because it was captured.

But neither should misconduct by some individuals become a justification for treating every citizen carrying a camera as a potential offender.

The principle should be simple

Protect the patient. Protect the medical worker. Protect the integrity of emergency care. But also protect the citizen's ability to preserve evidence and the journalist's ability to investigate matters of legitimate public interest.

A balanced policy can do all of these things.

Dweep Tulika's position is therefore not that hospitals should become unrestricted filming zones. It is that privacy and accountability require carefully defined rules rather than an unnecessarily broad approach to cameras and recording.

Because when an allegation is made, one of the most dangerous situations for any society is not that someone possesses a camera.

It is that there is no independent record of what actually happened.