Queries regarding inclusion of CBI in the second schedule claiming it was neither a security organisation nor an intelligence body - the notification of the Central Government not placed before the Parliament – CIC: the matter is before a court
18 Sep, 2013Queries regarding inclusion of CBI in the second schedule claiming it was neither a security organisation nor an intelligence body - the notification of the Central Government not placed before the Parliament – CIC: the matter is before a court – CIC has no jurisdiction to offer any comment or opinion on the fairness of any such investigation
Order
1. The Appellant had sought a copy of some memo prepared by Sri MK Puri, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and some other related information. The CPIO had refused to consider his request on the ground that the CBI had since been included in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a Government of India notification. Instead of filing an appeal against this order of the CPIO, the Appellant had chosen to approach the CIC directly.
2. The Appellant argued that the CPIO of the CBI was wrong because the inclusion of the CBI in the second schedule was not correct since it was neither a security organisation nor an intelligence body. According to him, the CBI had been created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and was an investigating agency. Therefore, he argued that the Central Government could not have included it in the second schedule. In addition, he contended that the notification of the Central Government should have been placed before both the houses of Parliament. Finally, he also submitted that the desired information would be covered under the 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: and, therefore, should be disclosed.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We cannot agree with the submissions made by the Appellant. The CBI has been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act by a notification of the Central Government under 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: . Until this notification of the Government is set aside by any Superior Court or repealed by the Government, the inclusion of the CBI cannot be wished away. The inclusion exempts the CBI from disclosure of a whole lot of information. The only items of information the CBI is obliged to disclose is that related to allegations of
corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by the Appellant in the present case clearly does not appear to either relate to any allegations of corruption or any human rights violation. Therefore, in our opinion, the CBI is not obliged to provide this information.
4. We also understand that this matter is now before a court. If the Appellant has any issues with the manner in which the CBI has investigated this matter, he could always bring this to the notice of the trial court. The CIC, in any case, has no jurisdiction to offer any comment or opinion on the fairness of any such investigation.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. B V K Ahluwalia v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No.CIC/SM/C/2013/000103