Copies of certain documents placed before CVO, CVC etc were denied by CBI claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: The fact that he is defending the case of one of the officers is insignificant as he is still a third party viz-a-viz the information sought

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information with reference to CBI R/C No.0102005A0006 and special case No.18A of 2008:

1. Copy of the letter through which documents have been sought from the office of the Vigilance Officer, BSNL, Calcutta Telephone, Calcutta, in connection with the case referred to above.

2.Provide copies of the documents sent by the said office.

3. Provide copies of notes, comments, observations, recorded by the Vigilance Office of the BSNL, Calcutta Telephone, Calcutta.

4. Provide copies of the documents finally placed before CVO and Central Vigilance Commissioner.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the information has been incorrectly denied to him as he being the lawyer of one of the officers against whom the trial is going on, cannot be treated as a third party and 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; is also not applicable in the present case. He also submitted that the information was available with the respondent authority only and not with the CBI, so Section 11 of the RTI Act was not applicable.

The CPIO submitted that appropriate replies were given to the appellant on 05.02.2019, 26.03.2019 & 10.04.2019.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on 05.02.2019 as he being a third party to the trial before the CBI, the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure u/s 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. 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. of the RTI Act. The fact that he is defending the case of one of the officers against whom the trial is going on is insignificant as under the provisions of the RTI Act, he is still a third party viz-a-viz the information related to any person other than him. After filing of the first appeal, the FAA while reviewing the reply of the CPIO has given some point-wise reply to the appellant and on one of the points, the matter was referred to CBI to seek its consent u/s 11 of the RTI Act, however, CBI vide its letter dated 10.04.2019 had claimed exemption u/s 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. While considering the totality of the facts, the Commission is unable to find any flaw in the replies so given, hence, no further relief can be given more so, when the information sought is definitely third party information which stands duly exempt u/s 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. 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. of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above, the Commission upholds the replies of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Satyendra Debray v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in File No.:- CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/126268, Date of Decision: 26/04/2021