Whether a particular DSE of ASI was granted bail by CBI Court & related information was denied u/s 24 - CIC took grave exception to the gross non-application of mind of the PIO - CIC: Information pertains to a third party exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
15 Oct, 2021Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2019 seeking the following information:
“One Mr. P.G. Krishnamurthy, Dy. Superintending Engineer, Archaeological Survey of India, Bhubaneshwar was convicted for one year RI and Rs. 1,000/- fine by the CBI Special Court through its judgement dated 31.7.2006 in T.R. No. 31/2002. Shri P.G. Krishnamurthy has filed an application for suspension of sentence in TR No. 31 of 2002 and filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack challenging the orders of the CBI Special court vide CRIA 324/2006.
(a) Whether Shri P.G. Krishnamurthy was granted bail against the conviction.
(b) If yes, a copy of the bail orders may please be supplied.
(c) Whether the CBI had objected for granting of bail? If yes, copy of the objection filed by the CBI may please be supplied.
(d) Whether the CBI had objected for suspension of Conviction in T.R. No. 31 of 2002?
(e) Copy of the objection may please be supplied.
(f) Whether the court has ordered for suspension of conviction?
(g) Copy of the order may please be supplied.
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, the Government of India has paid the accused/offender Rs. 52,27,721/- upto November, 2018 as subsistence allowance, etc. Due to non-pursuance of the appeal by the CBI in the High Court. Whether the CBI has insisted its Advocate to pursue the appeal for quick disposal in the High Court of Orissa. If yes, a copy of the latest reminder to the Advocate may please be furnished.”
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 23.12.2019 stating that information cannot be provided as per the Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Baidyanath Samal, Dy. Supdt. of Police & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for cannot be provided to the Appellant as it pertains to a third party.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard for want of contact details, the Commission is constrained to decide the case based on the strength of the material on record
The Commission takes grave exception to the gross non-application of mind of the CPIO evinced in the instant matter as the information sought for in the RTI Application clearly pertained to allegations of corruption yet the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act was invoked in the CPIO’s reply.
Nonetheless, concededly the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to a third party and disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; GirishRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
It is also pertinent to note that as such the information sought for in the RTI Application does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act as the queries are speculative in nature.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: L R Sudheendra Rao v. Central Bureau Investigation in File No: CIC/CBRUI/A/2020/115156, Date of Decision: 16/08/2021