Separate appeals should be filed if the sought information relates to different Public Authorities
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding Narcotics Commissioner Smt. Jagjit Pavadia such as copies of administrative order under which she was working on sensitive post for six years against the transfer policy of CBEC; number of vigilance and non-vigilance complaint received by PMO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CVC and CVO, CBEC against the person; name and designation of officer who had recommended her stay against transfer policy; name and post of the competent disciplinary authority for Narcotics Commissioner; and copies of rule under which the Narcotics Commissioner is declared immune to disciplinary action inspite of several vigilance complaints. The RTI application was transferred to Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise to respond to two queries i.e. number of vigilance and non- vigilance complaint received to PMO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CVC and CVO, CBEC against the person and copies of rule under which the Narcotics Commissioner is declared immune to disciplinary action instead of several vigilance complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise provided part information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to re-examine the issue regarding supply of the copies of reply filed by the officer in case where investigation and action has been completed. The FAA however denied the note sheets of the file 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; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide status of the cases referred by the appellant. The Commission rejected the copies of note sheet related to closed matters 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 that of the ongoing proceedings under 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; of the RTI Act. The CIC also advised the appellant to file separate appeals before the Commission for the remaining points which are related to different Public Authorities i.e. PMO and Ministry of Finance.
Citation: Mr. D.K. Singh v. Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001595
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/848
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission