Details of criminal case registered by CBI was denied u/s 24 - CIC warned the CPIO to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies; PIO should mention his name
1 May, 2019Information sought:
The Complainant sought information regarding the details of criminal case registered against Shri G. Rakesh Chandra IAS and other officers of Union Territory of Puducherry by Anti-Corruption wing of Central Bureau of Investigation in the year 2011 vide case No RC MA 12011-A-0027 dated 30.06.2011 for the alleged malpractices committed in construction of 1431 houses and other infrastructure of Tsunami victims at Kalapet and Puducherry including dates of CBI raids conducted in the house of Shri G. Rakesh Chandra and list of documents, jewels, cash and other items recovered from his house and its value, date and copy of First Information Report filed against him and other officers connected in the case etc.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information despite the fact that nature of information sought pertained to serious allegations of corruption.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Dr. Micheal Raj, SSP & Rep. of CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai present through VC.
Commission remarked at the outset that a bare perusal of the facts on record suggests serious allegations of corruption being referred to by the Complainant in his RTI Application. It was further observed that it is ironic that the CPIO chose to ignore the fact that information sought pertained to a criminal case pertaining to corruption registered against a public official for the alleged malpractices committed in construction of houses and other infrastructure for Tsunami victims at Kalapet and Puducherry. CPIO has clearly failed to regard the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act which provides for disclosure of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation.
Rep. of CPIO regretted the exemption of Section 24 of RTI Act invoked by the CPIO but went on to justify the denial 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 RTI Act by claiming that although the investigation was completed on 09.01.2014 and chargesheet was filed, prosecution is still pending.
Commission admonished the Rep. of CPIO for tendering feeble explanation without understanding the scope and ambit 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 RTI Act. The claim 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 RTI Act clearly came across as an afterthought, rather an excuse merely made up for the sake of argument.
Decision
Commission takes grave exception to the attempt of the Rep. of CPIO to misrepresent facts during hearing to merely stand by the denial of information. For better comprehension of the Rep. of CPIO, he shall note that only because prosecution is pending does not by implication mean that it will impede prosecution of offenders. The Respondent office has to substantiate how disclosure of the information sought by the Complainant will impede prosecution of the offenders from their end.
Commission also reprimands the CPIO to have failed to gauge his/her conscience regarding the clear allegation of corruption referred in the RTI Application while taking the refuge of Section 24 of RTI Act. The conduct of the CPIO is reflective of his/her gross non-application of mind and irrational approach towards the letter and spirit of RTI Act. Nonetheless, Commission does not find any malafide intention to ascribe to the CPIO in having denied the information, and therefore no action is warranted under Section 20 of the RTI Act in the matter.
The CPIO is warned to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 of RTI Act and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies for all cases alike in future.
It is also unnerving to note that the CPIO does not mention his/her name in the replies provided under RTI Act which further reflects on the prima-facie evasive and callous approach of the CPIO in owning up to his/her acts of omission and commission. CPIO shall ensure in future that all correspondences sent under RTI Act by him/her should bear his/her name.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and to look into the manner in which the CPIO appears to be dodging request for information under the garb of Section 24 of RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: B Bharathi v. CPIO, Head of Branch Central Bureau of Investigation in File No : CIC/CBRUI/C/2017/175974/SD, Date of Decision: 06/02/2019