Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1889
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Sharma - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1632 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5640 of 2016
Decided On : 12-02-2019
Vikramjit Banerjee, Adv., Anmol Chandan, Adv., Sayooj Mohandas M, Adv., Raj Bahadur, Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv.
The refusal to disclose information under the Right to Information Act can be justified if it is connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and may compromise the position of the sources of information.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Disclosure of Information - Source Information
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India appealed against the High Court's order dismissing their appeal and directing the supply of certain documents after redacting information that may disclose the identity of the informant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the refusal to supply the documents under Section 8(i)(h) of the Right to Information Act was justified, as the information was connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions, and could compromise the position of the sources of information. However, the Court also noted that the trial Court could call for the documents during the course of trial if deemed appropriate.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the High Court's order directing the supply of documents while considering the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the refusal to supply the documents under Section 8(i)(h) of the Right to Information Act was justified, but also acknowledged the possibility of the trial Court calling for the documents during the trial.
Final Decision: The impugned order directing the supply of certain documents was set aside, and the Civil Appeal was allowed to that extent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA NO.471/2015.
2. None appears on behalf of the respondent though served.
3. The appellant-Union of India and others have questioned the legality of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the LPA filed by the appellants holding that no prejudice was to be caused to the appellants in case the document Nos.1, 3 and 4 are supplied after redacting all the information which may disclose the identity of the informant. Document Nos. 2 and 5 have already been supplied.
4. The dispute remains about document Nos.1, 3 and 4 as they were not supplied considering the provisions of Section 8(i)(h) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and it was opined that it was source information that has triggered the anti-corruption proceedings and nothing should be done which affects the proceedings or which compromises the position of the sources of information.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons employed by the Information Commissioner, we are of the opinion that there was justification in refusing to supply the aforesaid documents. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of trial, if the trial Court feels it appropriate and if a prayer is made, the documents may be called by Court in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order in respect of document Nos.1, 3 and 4.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Appeal stands allowed to the above extent.
