Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 773
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
NISHITA MHATRE, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Vs.
Central Information Commission and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 1360 of 2011
Decided On : 15.12.2014
Information sought under the RTI Act cannot be refused if no public interest is involved. In the case of personal information, if it has no relationship to any public activity or interest, the Information Officer has the discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if larger public interest does not justify the disclosure of such information.
Headnote:
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - RTI - SECTION 8(1)(G) AND (H) - PERSONAL INFORMATION - EXEMPTION - PUBLIC INTEREST - CBI OFFICERS - DETAILS OF CBI OFFICERS WHOSE NAMES WERE PLACED IN THE LIST OF DOUBTFUL INTEGRITY - HELD, DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD CAST A SHADOW ON THE OFFICER'S INTEGRITY AND CAREER.
Fact of the Case:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to furnish information sought by an advocate under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The information sought included details of CBI officers whose names were placed in the list of doubtful integrity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the CIC had passed a well-reasoned order and that there was no reason why the information sought should not be furnished. It further held that the information sought did not fall within the exemptions carved out under section 8 of the RTI Act.
Issues: Whether the information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act was exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought by the respondent was not personal information but pertained to individual CBI officers in respect of their public duty. It further held that the exemption claimed under section 8 of the RTI Act was unjustified and had no bearing on the information required.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the CBI was dismissed and the order of the CIC was confirmed.
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation has preferred the present writ petition against the decision of the Central Information Commission appointed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act). The Commissioner has allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 2 and directed the CBI to furnish the information sought by him.
2. The respondent No. 2 is an Advocate. He submitted an application under section 6 of the RTI Act on 26.7.2010 to the Central Public Information Officer, SP/CBI, Port Blair which was transferred to CPIO/CBI/ACB/Kolkata Port Blair Branch. The information sought by him is as follows:-
(a) Photocopy of the Case Diary and the supplementary case diaries in connection with the Case No. RC 07 of 2008.
(b) Photocopy of the visitors Register of SP, ACB, CBI, Kolkata for the dates i.e. 18 to 20 February, 2008 and 7 to 9 April, 2008.
(c) Photocopy of GD Register of SP, ACB, CBI, Kolkata office for the period of 18 to 20 February, 2008 and 8 to 10 April, 2008.
(d) Photocopy of receipt Diary register of SP, ACB, CBI, Kolkata office for the dates of 10 & 11 April, 2008 and Dispatch Diary register of 11 & 12 April, 2008.
(e) Photocopy of Trap Money Register of SP, ACB, CBI, Kolkata office for the period of 1st April, 2008 to 30 April, 2008.
(f) Photocopy of details of expenditure incurred on the hiring of vehicle by CBI officers of ACB, Kolkata in connection with the investigation at Port Blair during period 1st April, 2008 to 30 June, 2008 alongwith the photocopies of the bills claimed.
(g) Photocopy of details of rewards given to the CBI officers of ACB, Kolkata for carrying out successful traps indicating the name & designation of the Officer and the amount of reward for the period of 1st April, 2008 to 30 June, 2008.
(h) Photocopy of details of CBI officers whose name was placed in the list of doubtful integrity during period of Jan 2006 to till date.
(i) Photocopy of details of CBI officers against whom the complaints were registered or contemplated and inquiry conducted or in progress.
3. The information sought was refused by the Central Public Information Officer on 30.08.2010. The respondent No. 2, being aggrieved by that decision, approached the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority being the Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata dismissed the appeal on 27.9.2010 with respect to points (a) to (g). The concerned Central Public Information Officer was directed to provide the information in respect of the points (h) and (i). This information was denied by claiming exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Being aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal on 21.10.2010 to the Second Appellate Authority.
4. The Central Information Commission who is the 2nd Appellate Authority passed an order on 13.07.2011 after hearing the parties. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to provide the information sought by the respondent No. 2.
5. Aggrieved by that decision the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed the present petition.
6. The learned counsel Mr. B.K. Das appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that any disclosure as sought by the respondent No.2 would jeopardize the officers and other informants. He further submitted that the Public Information Officer i.e. S.P. CBI, ACB, Kolkata had claimed exemption under section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. He urged that the disclosure of any personal information which has no relationship to any public activity, would invade the privacy of an individual and therefore, the Central Public Information Officer had rightly desisted from providing such information.
7. The learned counsel submitted further that the Joint Director who was the First Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the Central Public Information Officer. According to him, the order of the CIC does not take into account the fact that the respondent No. 2
