Information about the son of a murder victim was sought by accused - CIC: information denied u/s 8(1)(g); strong recommendation to the GoI to take necessary steps to prevent harassment of victims of crime by accused of that crime through the RTI channel
6 Jul, 2014Heard on 10.6.14. Appellant not present. Public Authority is represented by Shri Anthony Raj and Mrs. Moly Jose.
2. The appellant filed RTI application dated 30-10-2012 whereby he sought information as to one student who was lodged in St. Johns Boys Home, with regard to T.C issue by school etc. PIO replied on 08-11-2012. Being unsatisfied with the reply the appellant preferred First Appeal. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant approached the commission in Second Appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that Appellant is an accused in a murder case and Rahul about whom the Appellant is seeking the information is the son of the victim. Information regarding the hostel is not available as the same is maintained by a different society. However, the information available with the school has been furnished.
4. The questions sought under the RTI application are in no way helpful to accused in a murder case. Seeking school details of son of murdered victim also would pose a serious security threat to the school going boy. The Commission directs the school authorities not to create security problems to the boy by giving information which can be denied u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act.
5. The Commission takes a serious note that Respondent Public Authority does not mind the security issue and ignored section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; . They should have not given any information to the accused appellant and Commission directs no further disclosure of any information in this case.
6. This is a case of misuse of RTI by the accused to harass the son of victim of murder. The Commission strongly recommends the Govt. of India to take necessary steps to prevent harassment of victims of crime by accused of that crime through the RTI channel, the objective of which is not to be a tool in the hands of accused. The appeal is rejected.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ram Avtar v. St. John Co Ed Sec. School in Case No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000607SA