SC: No obligation to disclosure grounds of arrest at pre-detention stage under RTI

A three-judge bench of justices Altamas Kabir, Gyan Sudha Misra and J Chelameshwar of the Supreme Court has held that under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, there is no obligation on the state to disclose the grounds of detention of a person under a preventive detention law before his arrest.
It means that a person detained under the preventive detention laws like NSA, COFEPOSA etc is not required to be treated in the same manner as a person arrested in connection with the commission of an alleged offence.

Under Article 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the Constitution, the authorities making an arrest are under an obligation to disclose to a person the reasons for his / her arrest. The Article 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (5) of the Constitution provides that the grounds for detention are to be served on a detainee after his detention. Section 3 of the RTI Act says that “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” However, this section cannot be applied to the cases relating to preventive detention at the pre-execution stage i.e. Section 3 of the RTI Act has to give way to the provisions Article 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (5) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court dismissed a bunch of RTI petitions seeking disclosure of information under the RTI Act for detunes at the pre-detention stage holding that its earlier judgement in the Choith Nanikram Harchandai and Suresh Hotwani case wherein it was ruled that such disclosure was mandatory should not be treated as a precedent.

The apex court also said "The exercise of powers vested in the superior courts in judicially reviewing executive decisions and orders cannot be subjected to any restrictions by an order of the court of law….. The most precious right of a citizen is his right to freedom and if the same is to be interfered with, albeit in the public interest, such powers have to be exercised with extra caution and not as an alternative to the ordinary laws of the land”.