CIC: The expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) cannot be read to extend to all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights; It cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters
8 Feb, 2023Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.07.2021 seeking information on the following:- The records pertaining to appointment of persons on compassionate grounds and related information.
The CPIO/DIG, CISF, vide letter dated 02.08.2021 denied the information u/s 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2021. The FAA/IG, CISF, vide order dated 17.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal citing two decisions:
- UOI vs Adarsh Sharma[WP(C) No. 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 of the Delhi High Court and
- Ms. Harman Guliani vs. CPIO, CISF dated 17.10.2017 passed by this Commission in case no. CIC/SB/A/2016/000136.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, CISF vide letter dated 06.01.2023 reiterating the above facts.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant stated that information has been sought through the instant RTI application for proper adjudication of a pending writ petition.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the detailed averments and records submitted by the parties, the Commission finds no legal infirmity in the responses sent by the PIO in the aforementioned two cases. The queries raised by the Appellant constitute personal information related to officials who are third parties. Hence, disclosure of information with respect to such queries would be barred even under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In addition, it is not disputed that the Respondent is a security organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and no allegation of corruption or violation of human rights has been justified by the Appellant in his Second Appeal or during the course of hearing.
Both decisions cited by the Appellant are based on the Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Adarsh Sharma[supra], wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:
“..4. The information sought by the respondent was neither any information related to the allegations of corruption in Intelligence Bureau nor an information related to the human rights violations. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing the Intelligence Bureau to provide the said information to the respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Central Information Commission being contrary to the provisions of the Act, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
5. However, in my view, if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act. It appears that there is a litigation going on in Rajasthan High Court between the respondent and Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas. It also appears that the respondent has a serious doubt as to whether Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, who was reported to have died on 03.09.2009, has actually died or not. The Intelligence Bureau could possibly help in such matters by providing information as to whether Dr. Vyas had actually left India on 10.10.2009 for Auckland on flight No CX708. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, I direct the Intelligence Bureau to consider the request made by the respondent on administrative side and take an appropriate decision thereon within four weeks from today. It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not...”
Thus reading the aforementioned order makes it clear that the Court had actually held that direction for disclosure of information in the above case was contrary to provisions of the RTI Act since the information sought did not relate to corruption or violation of human rights.
It is also pertinent to note that the Delhi High Court has on numerous occasions while deciding cases like (i) The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission And Anr. vide decision dated 02.02.2018 and (ii) Director General and Anr. Vs. Harender decided on 16.09.2013 it has been held by the Courts of law that: “No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.” and that “The expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the Act cannot be read to extend to all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters...”
In the light of the aforementioned discussion and considering the nature of queries which do not indicate that they relate to the Appellant, the Commission upholds the responses sent by the Respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, no further intervention of the Commission is deemed necessary in this case. In so far as the plea of the Appellant about seeking this information to substantiate the pending writ petition is concerned, he is advised to obtain the same outside the purview of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ashwani Verma v. CISF, Second Appeal No. CIC/CISFO/A/2021/156819, Date of Decision: 20.01.2023