Disclosure under RTI of various high profile cases of CBI
The appellant sought a variety of information regarding various high profile cases such as, the total amount of black money deposited outside India, the number of persons arrested in the 2 G scam, the total amount of expenditure on tours in connection with Headley and Quottrochi matters, the total number and the names of the accused in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, the number of staff deployed in the CBI in various groups, the names of the 50 most wanted accused and a number of accused arrested in the Madhumita Shukla case etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to any of the query.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed for disclosure of the sought information observing that most of the queries were related to statistical details which should have been disclosed by the PIO (as none of them are covered under any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act), if it was maintained by the Public Authority. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated period thus attracting the provisions of penalty 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.
Citation: Shri Nitesh Kumar Tripathi v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001077 & 1078
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/255
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission