Can final report of CESTAT Inquiry Committee be disclosed under RTI?
25 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance seeking information regarding the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee in relation to a case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and for the rest he informed the appellant that CESTAT has objected to the disclosure of the document referred to in the RTI application. A copy of CESTAT’s objection was also provided to the appellant. The First Appellate authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO while stating that the third party (CESTAT) has submitted that Justice Khandeparker has directed Member (Judicial) to carry out the enquiry afresh. The old reports are therefore no longer valid or exist in the eye of law. As soon as the fresh report is ready, it can be furnished to the appellant. The FAA held that the process of enquiry has not been concluded and therefore, disclosure of information at this stage stands exempted under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that FAA has illegally and malafidely taken an ex-parte decision on the third party objection of the CESTAT. The PIO, in relation to the request for supplying a copy of the Final Report of the Inquiry Committee had stated that no such report has been received in the Department of Revenue (DOR), whereas the Registrar, CESTAT has already forwarded a copy of the said Final Report to DOR. Therefore, the PIO has provided false and incorrect information deliberately. The FAA has erred in not appreciating that the CESTAT in its reply has nowhere objected to providing copy of the letter under which the said Inquiry Committee Report has been received by the DOR. The appellant prayed for enquiry to be instituted under section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. of the RTI Act and penalty be imposed on the PIO for knowingly and malafidely not providing the correct and complete information and for not providing copy of third party’s reply before taking decision in the matter. The respondent stated that the FAA had held that the process of enquiry was not concluded at that time. Therefore, its disclosure is exempted under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the 3rd party i.e. CESTAT, has not cited any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information to the appellant. The PIO too has not furnished any reasons for holding that the 3rd party information cannot be provided. The FAA has quoted the provision of section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act without giving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/ enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant as requested in his RTI application. The Commission ruled that the PIO has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant regarding the report of the Enquiry Committee. Under section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to the PIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant.
Citation: Mr. R.K. Jain v. Ministry of Finance in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001342
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1393
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission