Does Section 24 apply only to the intelligence & security related activities of the exempt organisations?

Many of us have been refused access to information by police departments and intelligence and security organisations under Section 24 of the RTI Act. I have come across a few judgements that have narrowed down the scope of this provision, particularly in NE States. It all started in Punjab and Haryana in 2011 and the latest judgement is from Manipur High Court at Imphal from February 2016. The grounds for narrowing down the scope of Section 24 are as follows:

1) Section 24 is meant to exempt only the intelligence and security related activities of the exempt organisations. Other routine activities will not be affected, especially if the outcome of the proposed RTI intervention is more transparency in the non-sensitive activities of such organisations.

2) It is not necessary to prove that human rights violations or corruption actually occurred to seek information from such organisations. If a nexus can be shown between the information sought and the likelihood of corruption or human rights violation, that would suffice.

3) An RTI applicant cannot claim access to information by simply alleging that corruption or human rights violation occurred in an exempt organisation. There must be some basis to show that there is a nexus between the information sought and the potential of likelihood of occurrence for corruption or human rights violation.

4) Section 24 must be interpreted strictly, so as to not defeat the purpose of allowing for disclosure of information about allegations of human rights violation or corruption.

In a few other cases without getting into these arguments, Courts have ordered the disclosure of administration related information of exempt organisations. In another case they rejected retrospective application of the Section 24 notification. The citations of the judgments are given below.

Readers may use the case laws in their arguments before the Information Commissions and Courts.

VENKATESH NAYAK

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

W.A. No. 320 of 2010

Decided On: 06.04.2011

Appellants: The Superintendent of Police
Vs.
Respondent: R. Karthikeyan
[Alongwith W.A. No. 321 of 2010]

Right to Information - Applicability of enactment - Section 24(4) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Dismissal of Writ Petitions by Judge with a direction to Appellant/writ Petitioner to furnish information to respective first Respondent in Appeals within two weeks from date of receipt of order, failing which to face further action at hands of Information Commission under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of Act - Hence, Writ Appeals - held, Right to Information Act is a rights based enactment more akin to any other enactments safeguarding fundamental rights - Democracy required an informed citizenry and transparency of information - Act encompassed right of a citizen to seek for information to which he was entitled under provisions of Act and corresponding duty of information officers to furnish such information - It led to transparency in government functioning - As per Section 24(4), State Government was empowered to notify in Official Gazette that nothing contained in Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organization being organizations established by State Government - Power being conferred on State Government to notify exempting such intelligence and security organizations, it could not notify in respect of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations - Application of notification depended upon nature of information required - Orders of the Chief Information Commissioner could not be questioned by Superintendent of Police - Appeals dismissed.

2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 28.4.2011

(i) LPA No. 744 of 2011

First Appellate Authority cum Additional Director General of Police and another …..Appellants

vs.

Chief Information Commission Haryana and another

…..Respondents

(ii) LPA No. 745 of 2011

First Appellate Authority cum Additional Director General of Police and another …..Appellants

vs.

Chief Information Commission Haryana and another 

…..Respondents

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

3. In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

CWP No. 12904 of 2009

Date of decision: January 27, 2011

First Appellate Authority and another ..Petitioners.

Versus

Chief Information Commissioner and another ..Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL

W.P. (C) No. 642 of 2015

Shri Phairembam Sudesh Singh,

... PETITIONER

- Versus -

1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

2. The Manipur/State Information Commission through the State Chief Information Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, DGP, Control Room-cum-ASPIO, Police Department, Manipur, Imphal.

... RESPONDENTS

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH

5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

W.P. No. 805 of 2012

Decided On: 28.11.2012

Appellants: Superintendent of Police

Vs.

Respondent: M. Kannappan and Another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D. Hariparanthaman, J.

6. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR

Before : The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nishita Mhatre.

W.P. No.1360 of 2011

(The Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. The Central Information Commission and another)

For the petitioner : Mr.Bimal Kumar Das

Mr.Nadeem Akhtar Khan

For the respondent No.2 : Mr.Mohammed Tabraiz

Heard on : 08/12/2014

Judgment on : December 15, 2014

Nishita Mhatre, J.:

7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL

W.P.(C) No. 880 of 2014

Ym. Md. Abid Hussain

..... Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal Secretary,

(Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.

3. The Superintendent of Police, DGP, Control Room-cum-ASPIO, Police Department, Manipur, Imphal.

...... Respondents

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH