There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty
3 Feb, 2019Background
In July 2006, the petitioner was arrested in relation to Mumbai Train Blast case by the Anti Terrorism squad, Mumbai. The petitioner claimed that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) collected information about the involvement of Indian Mujahideen from various agencies and prepared a report and placed it before the Home Minister in the year 2009, suggesting review of the evidence in the Mumbai train blast case. It was suggested that the said report indicated that Indian Mujahideen and not the petitioner were responsible for the blasts in the Mumbai Trains on 7th July 2006.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs seeking true copy of the IB report, which was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2009 for review/re-appreciation of evidence in the Mumbai train blast case. The request was rejected claiming that IB is beyond the purview of the RTI Act.
View of the CIC
When the matter came up in second appeal, the CIC rejected the appeal preferred under Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act on the ground that the IB is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act and the information sought by the petitioner does not relate to allegations of human rights violation or corruption.
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: 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: 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: of the RTI Act expressly provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to Intelligence and Security organisations specified in the Second Schedule. The first 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: 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: 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: carves out an exception in respect of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Such information is not excluded 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: 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: 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: of the Act.
The expression human rights is not defined in the RTI Act.
View of the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court referred to “human rights” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The Court noted the allegation that the petitioner has been implicated by false evidence and that the report placed before the Home Ministry does contain material that would establish that the petitioner is innocent of the offence for which the petitioner has been tried and convicted.
The Court held “There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty. It is the petitioners case that he is deprived of his liberty on the basis of false evidence and the information available in the report placed before the Home Minister would indicate the same.” The Court ruled that the petitioners application seeking review report does pertain to an allegation of human rights violation.
Citation: Delhi HIGH Court in W.P.(C) 9773/2018, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs CPIO, Intelligence Bureau dated 16 January, 2019
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2019/CIC/1488
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission