Copies of Charge-sheet against Mr. Kailash Chand, (DIG), statements of prosecution & defence witness, exhibits etc were denied u/s 24 - Appellant: her late husband’s properties was grabbed - CIC: part information pertains to allegations of corruption
Copies of the Charge-sheet against Mr. Kailash Chand, (DIG), statements of prosecution & defence witness, exhibits and judgment by GSFC etc were sought - Appellant: after the death of her husband in 1997, Mr. Kailash Chand (elder brother of her late husband) married her in a temple in the year 2000 in Triyat, Jammu and Kashmir, promising that it will be recognized socially at Ghaziabad, where she resides - Appellant: he made sexual intercourse with her and also got her pregnant twice and got it aborted - Appellant: Mr Kailash Chand grabbed all the ancestral and her late husband’s properties and money during this time - Respondent: the chargesheet filed by BSF in this regard was under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code; information denied u/s 24 - CIC: provide part of the information pertaining to allegations of corruption
1. The appellant is present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri Vikash Chandra (DIG, Pers).
2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 6.3.2013 addressed to PIO, B.S.F H.Q, Lodhi Road, New Delhi seeking information in relation to complaint lodged against Mr. Kailash Chand, D.I.G (Udaipur) in the year 2009. The appellant submits that she was examined along with other witnesses by G.S.F.C and so seeks copies of the following documents that were part of the proceeding in the said G.S.F.C:
i) Complaint lodged by Mrs Amresh Sharma
ii) Charge-sheet against Mr. Kailash Chand, D.I.G (Udaipur)
iii) Statements of all the P.W (prosecution witnesses) examined by the G.S.F.C
iv) Statements of all the D.W (defence witnesses) examined by the G.S.F.C
v) All the exhibits produced in the G.S.F.C
vi) Judgment by G.S.F.C
3. The CPIO vide reply dated 20.3.2013 informed the appellant that the required information cannot be provided as the information sought does not fall within the ambit of section 24. The appellant filed first appeal dated 10.4.2013 on the grounds that the information sought is excluded from this exemption as all information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violations are excluded from this exemption given to B.S.F. The first appellate authority vide order dated 29.4.2013 held that B.S.F being a security organization listed in second schedule of the Act has been given exemption from providing information under section 24 of the RTI Act 2005 except the information related to human rights violation and the allegations of corruption and also that your case is not covered under the aforesaid exceptions. The appellant submits in second appeal that after death of her husband in the year 1997 Mr. Kailash Chand (D.I.G, SHQ BSF Udaipur, Tripura, elder brother of her late husband) married her in a temple in the year 2000 in Triyat, Jammu and Kashmir, promising that it will be recognized socially at Ghaziabad, where the appellant resides. The appellant further states that he made sexual intercourse with the appellant and also got her pregnant twice and he got it aborted. The appellant states that since she was illiterate, Mr Kailash Chand grabbed all the ancestral and her late husband’s properties and money during this time, some of which he sold and some transferred in his name. The appellant filed a complaint in relation to the same in BSF HQ, New Delhi on June 18, 2009 against Mr. Kailash Chand and that based on charge-sheet made against Mr Kailash Chand, G.S.F.C trial was held at STS BSF, New Delhi wherein the appellant was examined along with other witnesses before G.S.F.C. The appellant submits that since the judgement of GSFC was inappropriate justice for the appellant and that the appellant would like to appeal in the civil court and for that the information is required.
4. During the hearing the respondent has clarified that the said G.S.P.C has now concluded and the appropriate action has also been taken. The appellant submits that the BSF has not even provided a copy of the final result of the said enquiry report. The appellant submits that the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
5. The respondent has apprised the Commission that the chargesheet filed by BSF in this regard was under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has made two fold allegations in her RTI application. Firstly, the offence in relation to which the chargesheet has been filed by BSF and secondly the appellant alleges and submits that her ancestral properties have been grabbed in an illegal manner by Mr Kailash Chand and transferred in his own name and also sold some of them. The Commission is of the view that the information sought in the second part of her application pertain to allegations of corruption. Looking into the factual matrix of the present appeal and furtherance of transparency in such matters, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide the copies of documents sought at point no. (i) (ii) and (vi) to the appellant . Information sought at point (iii) (iv) & (v) attracts provisions of section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 as the appellant has sought copy of statement of all the witnesses on these points.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Mrs Amresh Sharma v. Border Security Force in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001729