Information regarding two accounts in Post Office was denied u/s 8(1)(h) without giving any reasons as to how the release of information would hamper the process of investigation - the information was subsequently supplied - CIC: PIO warned for future

Information sought:

The applicant has sought the information regarding the present situation/condition of two accounts no. (7610482 & 7610487) in Godhra Head Post Office under scheme of Senior Citizen Saving Scheme:-

a. If the account is continuing, please amount of credit.

b. If the account is closed, than the last of that.

c. Mode of Payment: By cash or cheque.

d. If paid by Cheque, through which bank?

e. Cheque Number of the payment and name to whom the amount paid.

f. Type of Cheque: Bearer/Cross/Order/Account Payee only.

g. By which Bank and by which Account number this Cheque came for collection?

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.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Patel Hasmukhbhai Maganbhai through VC

Respondent: Mr. Y B Patel CPIO’s representative through VC

The appellant stated that the respondent have wrongly denied 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; 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 without giving any reasons as to how the release of information would hamper the process of investigation. He further stated that he is a poor farmer and both he and his wife have medical problem and non-availability of funds has resulted in great hardship. The appellant, however, admitted that the information has been recently supplied. The CPIO regretted and admitted that the then CPIO should have given logical reasons for 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; 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.

Decision notice:

 The information has been provided. The matter at hand is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision dated 03/12/2007 ( WP(C) 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs) holding 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.” In the instant case there was no legitimate ground for not releasing the information as the CPIO had not demonstrated any satisfactory reasons for withholding the information. Hence, the CPIO, who received the appellant’s RTI application, is warned to exercise due care for future to ensure that the correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per the provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated in future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Patel Hasmukhbhai Maganbhai v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000840/5101