Information pertaining to daily diary register in the context of a mobile phone snatching incident was denied u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - CIC: enable the appellant to inspect the documents relevant to the enquiry and provide photo copies
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 22.07.2013 seeking information pertaining to daily diary register. The appellant filed first appeal on 26.08.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 10.09.2013. The appellant filed a second appeal on 28.10.2013 with the Commission.
2. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
3. The respondent referred to the RTI application of 22.07.2013 and stated that the appellant had sought information on 4 points in context of a mobile phone snatching incident.
4. The incident had been followed up by a phone call to the PCR. The respondent stated that subsequent to this phone call, the I.O. made an attempt to contact the caller who could not be contacted, and consequent to this the matter was filed. The respondent explained that this was followed up by a complaint and inquiry made by the Public Grievances Cell (P.G. Cell). The respondent stated that the inquiry concluded that a case should be registered, and accordingly a case was registered and that the matter is still under investigation.
5. The respondent explained that the FAA on 10.9.2013 responded to the appellant and stated that records of daily diary entries are available in the police station but 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; and (j) of the RTI Act had been invoked in consideration of the circumstances. The respondent explained that the appellant was also asking for copy of the attendance register but they did not see any reason to provide this hence 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 invoked.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
7.The respondent is directed to enable the appellant to inspect the documents relevant to the enquiry and provide photo copies within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Hemu Gautam v. Delhi Police in Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002765/VS