Seeking the correspondence pages and copy of the note sheet in a closed vigilance case
3 Apr, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Vigilance (DGoV), Customs and Central Excise seeking information regarding the detail status of complaint filed against an individual and in case the complaints have been closed then the date of its closure, copy of closure report and copy of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommending for closure of case. The appellant sought the correspondence pages, note sheets, details of the action taken by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), all communication received or sent to CVC and Chief Commissioner etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information by claiming exemption under 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. and section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the desired details and inspection of the entire correspondence portion of the subject case file to the appellant. As regards the note sheet portion of the file, the FAA held that the same would not be disclosed as they are covered under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. The FAA also observed that the PIO has to seek CVC and CBI comments before disclosing the information sought under section 11 of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the FAA has erred in upholding the exemption under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act in relation to the note sheet portion of the files in which the cases have already been closed. The appellant further added that the FAA has erred in directing the PIO to seek comments from the CVC and CBI under section 11 of the RTI Act before disclosing the information as sought in some points. The opinion of the CVC was rendered in the file of the DGoV and therefore, it cannot be termed as third party information. Moreover, as per the proviso to section 8(1)(i), once the matter completed the material on the basis of which decision is taken should be disclosed. The appellant argued that the PIO neither provided the information in prescribed time limit nor sent third party notice to CVC and CBI as directed by the FAA. The PIO submitted that the case against the said person was closed not by the DGoV but by the decision taken in the joint meeting of CVC, CBI and officials of DGoV. The PIO also held that the note sheet portion is rightly held to be not shown to the RTI applicant as there is free opinion expressed by each individual officer and if these are shown under RTI Act, it would affect the working of the DGoV. The PIO further held that the CBI is specifically covered in second schedule and falls under section 24 of the RTI Act as such their correspondence, documents etc cannot be shown. Regarding CVC, the copy of OM was disclosed without any enclosure. For this reason the file pertaining to said person based on the above OM was shown to the appellant. The PIO submitted that after seeing the files the appellant desired that these should be paginated. The PIO stated that as the files were already closed then no alteration could be done after completion of investigation by anyone.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that no malafide for obstructing information is established against the PIO and the contention of the appellant has no merit that the PIO has not complied with the directions of the FAA. As the FAA advised the PIO to seek a no objection certificate (NOC) from CVC and CBI, the PIO has sought the same from them. The CIC added that as the relevant file has been inspected by the appellant the matter was disposed of.
Citation: Mr. R.K. Jain v. Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0000890
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1170
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission