Copy of SB & RD ledger entries of postal accounts was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: information cannot be withheld merely due to pending investigation; it must be shown by PIO that the disclosure of the information would ‘impede’ the investigation

ORDER

Information sought:

The applicant wants the Photostat copy of SB and RD ledger entries in respect of the SB and RD accounts mentioned in his RTI Application for the period from date 01/04/2004 to Date of last transaction.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has denied the information 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; 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 2005.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The appellant stated that a fraud had been committed by an employee and he has been charge sheeted for some lapses in his official duty and needs the information requested in his RTI application dated 21/08/2012 for defending his case. The CPIO stated that an enquiry is going on in the matter and hence the information is exempt 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; 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. The appellant contested stating that the information can be denied 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; 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 only if it would impede the investigation/enquiry and the respondents have not shown any reasonable grounds as to how the release of information would impede the investigation/enquiry and sans this consideration the information cannot be denied. The CPIO informed that the legal department had opined that the matter needs further investigation either through the CBI or departmentally. However, to a specific query by the Commission the CPIO was unable to explain how the release of the information sought by the appellant would impede the investigation/enquiry.

Decision notice: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 3114/2007, decided on 03/12/2007 (Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs) has held as under: 13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, 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; 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; and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information. The mere pendency of the investigation/enquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information would ‘impede’ or even on a lesser threshold ‘hamper’ or ‘interfere’ with the investigation/enquiry. This burden the respondent has failed to discharge. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 21/08/2012 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. P. Selvaraju v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000470/4732