Review of order by the CIC after a representation by the PIO

Background

The appellant referred to a certain case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him. He wanted to know whether the investigating officer and the Deputy Legal Adviser had not proposed inclusion of his name in the charge-sheet but his name was included by someone else. He also wanted copies of all the relevant records including correspondence in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose 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; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under 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; 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; 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.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) heard the case on 2 April 2012 and directed the PIO to provide the information observing that 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; 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; 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; cannot be invoked unless there is evidence to show that this would really endanger the life or safety of the authority concerned and in the instant case there is nothing on record to substantiate such an apprehension. After the case was decided, the PIO of the CBI represented to the CIC that the hearing notice had not been served on him and that he would like to be heard in the matter before a final decision was taken. The commission verified the fact and decided to hear the PIO.

Proceeding

During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the disclosure of the recommendations of the officers at each decision making level in the CBI would expose the individual officers thereby posing threat to their physical safety. He also submitted that the matter was sub-judice in the High Court and the disclosure of the desired information would adversely affect and impede the process of persecution. The respondent also pointed out that the disclosure of the internal decision making  process in a case of this nature  would have a long term adverse effect on the freedom enjoyed by the CBI officers in expressing their honest and free opinion on any case. Once their views and comments in an individual case are placed in the public domain, they would be hesitant to express themselves freely and that would never be in the public interest. He argued that it was in public interest and in the interest of fair investigation and prosecution of the accused that details of the recommendations made by CBI officers at various levels are kept confidential and not disclosed under the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the desired information was very factual and he had not sought to know about the comments or views expressed by individual officers but had only wanted to know at which level in the CBI it had been decided to include his name as an accused.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the matter is pending before the Sessions Court and the matter of the prosecution has not become final. The Commission also noted that what the appellant has sought to know amounts to the views expressed by various officers of the CBI. The Commission held the disclosure of the level recommending prosecution would reveal the name of the officer in the process which could pose a threat to their personal safety. Such information is exempt from disclosure under 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; 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; 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. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of the desired information would impede the process of persecution and poses a threat to the physical safety of the officer concerned who had recommended that his name be included in the list of the accused. The Commission also advised the appellant that he may raise these issues before the sessions court and request for such information.

Comments

This is one of the rare cases where the CIC has reviewed its own order. The disclosure of the name of an officer who has given a noting in the course of sanction of prosecution has been a subject matter of RTI applications repeatedly.

Citation: Mr. Narinder Pal Saggu v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000507