A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Appellant sought information in public interest - CIC: The material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter; no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure

17 Jul, 2023

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2022 seeking the following information:

“The said information is urgently required in public interest. It is also submitted that the said information is not exempted from disclosure as per the R.T.I Act and also based on the following decisions.

1.Shri Vinod Kumar Jain V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence. New Delhi -Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS. Information cannot be disclosed till the investigations are over. (ln this matter investigation is over). Information cannot be disclosed if action for prosecution of offenders is initiated, being exempt under Section 8(l) (h). In the above case there is no prosecution involved.

2.Dr. B.L. Malhotra Vs. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (No. 783/IC(A)2007 dated 06.06.2007). When investigations are in progress, documents cannot be disclosed. Copy of SP, CBI's report (Sections 8(1)(g), 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. 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; and 10 1) of the RTI Act). ln this case investigation is over.

3.D.P. Maheshwari vs. CBI (Appeal No. CIC / WB / A /2008 /0269 and 270. Dated 25.8.2009). The appellant sought the copy of the SP, CBI's report. Accordingly, part of information exonerating the appellate may be provided as per Sub Section 1 of Section10 of the RTI Act.

4. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Decision No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG/13251 https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/ClC_SM_C_2011_000129_SG_13251_M_598 76.pdf

Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG.

Held that while allowing the complaint the Bench directed the CPIO to provide complete information to Ranawat (the complainant) in relation to query 1 before 30 July 2011. It further directed PIO & AIG (P- II) to provide the details of movable and immovable property of existing CBI officials working in Delhi and Mumbai to the Complainant before 30 July 2011.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2022. The FAA responded on 01.09.2022. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri V Navaraju, ASP present through Video-Conference.

The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record. The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the order passed by the FAA which stated as under:

The Respondent, during the hearing, has further apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant i.e. Preliminary Enquiry Report consists of details of other officers also, therefore, the same also cannot be provided under the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply of the CPIO invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act is appropriate in as much as the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, therefore the Commission finds no reason to invoke 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: 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 to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision is reproduced as under:

“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.-

(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:…”

In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:

“4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption....” [Emphasis Supplied]

The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.

Similarly, the Commission is unable to ascribe tenacity to the allegation of human rights violation for invoking 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: 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. In this regard, the Commission is guided by a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held as under:

“8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no. 2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no. 2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".

9. The expression “Human Rights” denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.

10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression “Human Rights” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".

11. The expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in 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: of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied].

12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that ‘No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.’ ’’ [Emphasis Supplied]

Lastly, it is pertinent to note that the reliance placed by the Appellant on a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 734/2018 UNION OF INDIA versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR dated 22.03.2022 lacks applicability in view of the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 against admission hearing for SLP Diary No. 5557/2023 filed by the Union of India against the averred Delhi High Court judgment:

“It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the appellant/Directorate of Enforcement, being in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, the RTI Act shall not be applicable/applied to the said Organisation. However, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has observed that the “information sought can be said to pertaining to the human rights violations” and therefore, Section 24 of the RTI Act shall not be applicable.

Though, we do not approve the reasoning given by the High Court, however, taking into consideration the fact that what was sought was the service record, namely, seniority list and copies of the proposal for promotion of the Lower Division Clerks placed before the DPC, keeping the question of law open, whether on other aspects or with respect to other information whether RTI Act shall be applicable to the appellant or not, we do not entertain the present Special Leave Petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the documents sought.

At the cost of repetition, it is observed that we do not approve the reasoning given by the High Court. However, still, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we refuse to entertain the present Special Leave Petition, keeping the question of law open.”

Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission is not in a position to order for any relief in the matter. Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Cyril C George v. ACB Cochin, Office of the Supdt. of Police, CBI, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/148116; Date of Decision: 01/06/2023

Appellant sought information in public interest - CIC: The material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter; no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.