Section 24: Allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations; A mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. What is present/preceding mandate of Defence Institute of Bio-Energy Research (DIBER), DRDO Haldwani. Provide copies of relevant documents.

2. When was the old mandate of DIBER/DRDO was changed to the present mandate. Provide a copy of the relevant authority letter.

3. How many service officers from Army (RVC) are presently posted at DIBER/DRDO all together, with copies of the posting orders.

4. What is the budget allocation for the Service Officers from Army (RVC) posted in DIBER,DRDO for the financial year 2019-20. Provide a copy of the budged allocation.

5. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO has rejected the application under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant in her second appeal had not mentioned any grounds which comes under the ambit of allegation of corruption or human rights violation. She also failed to appear for the hearing.

The CPIO submitted that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The appellant was informed that her request for information does not come under the purview of the above mentioned provisions. Therefore, her application was rejected under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the Act.

Observations:

DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.

The expression ‘’allegation of corruption’’ and ‘’violation of human rights’’ is not defined in the Act, thus, it is open to the Commission to decide whether the allegation of corruption or human rights violation applies or is relevant on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word ‘corruption’ or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant.

It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 83/2014 held that

“...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption”

Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-

“...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act”

Decision:

The aforesaid adequately proves that the Appellant’s instant case cannot be considered to be a matter of violation of her fundamental rights/human rights violation nor has the allegation of corruption been substantiated. A conjoint reading of the above ratios laid down by the superior courts as well as the observations of the Commission leads to the conclusion that no further action is warranted in the matter more so when the appellant herself has not appeared for the hearing to pursue her case.

The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Unnati Sharma v. Defence Research and Development Organisation in File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/154623, Date of Decision: 16/03/2021