Are complaints exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h)?

Background

The information about the action taken on two complaints filed by the appellant in corruption matters was sought. The PIO refused the information claiming exemption 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; 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 stating that, the department was in the process of initiating an action as per the inquiry report of the AC Unit and disclosure of the same is restricted 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; 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; .

View of CIC

The commission observed that neither the PIO nor the First Appellate Authority has justified as to how 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; 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; applies. The CIC stated that the contextual background and history of the RTI Act is such that the exemptions outlined in Section 8, have to be construed strictly in their terms. The denial of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights. In view of this, the Commission ordered the PIO to furnish the sought information.

Comments

The mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information. The Public Authority must show satisfactory reasons (based on some material) as to how the disclosure of such information would hamper the investigation process.

Mr. Akshay Pant  v. A & N Administration Secretariat [CIC/SG/A/2011/002057/15520]