Reasons for refusal of CBI to take up a case for investigation
The appellant referred to Arushi murder case and stated that the CBI had taken up this case for investigation but refused to take up another case. In this regard the appellant filed the RTI application seeking the information regarding the refusal of the CBI to take up that murder case for investigation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished partial information while the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the queries do not amount to information within the meaning of ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the query sought by the appellant was legitimate and since all decisions by public authorities are expected to be based on objective reasons, there is no harm in providing him the copies of the relevant records in which the competent authority had decided to accept the Arushi murder case for investigation. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the competent authority had decided to accept the Arushi murder case for investigation.
This case law lays emphasis on the fact that the decisions taken by the public authority should be objective and based on reasons. A public authority cannot act in an arbitrary manner and the reasons for taking a decision are liable for disclosure.
Citation: Shri Raghunath Prasad Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000412SM
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/207
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission