JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged a Memo dated 11th March, 2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) disclosing certain documents under The Right to Information Act, 2005, with reference to an ongoing police case. The documents in question are a series of WhatsApp chats between one Rashika Jain (since deceased) and Abhishek Padia from 26th November, 2014 -22nd July, 2019. The documents also include photographs of Rashika Jain and Abhishek Padia. The petitioner is the father of the deceased Rashika Jain and seeks a restraint on the disclosure of the WhatsApp chats between his late daughter and her friend Abhishek Padia.

2. The reference made above to an ongoing P.S. Case is relevant for a more complete appreciation of the concerns of the parties before the Court. The petitioner’s daughter Rashika Jain and Kushal Agarwal (son of respondents Naresh and Nilam Agarwal) were married on 9th February, 2020. Rashika Jain died on 16th February, 2021 under mysterious circumstances. The Jains and the Agarwals thereafter filed criminal proceedings against each other. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Alipore P.S. on 17th February, 2021 against Kushal Agarwal and his parents (the Alipore P.S. Case). The Agarwals lodged a case in the Kalighat P.S. on 22nd July, 2021 against the petitioner and his wife for removal of jewellery belonging to Rashika Jain from the locker of the Axis Bank (the Kalighat P.S. Case). The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 21st June, 2022. Kushal Agarwal, the husband of late Rashika Jain, is presently in custody and an application for bail has recently been rejected.

3. The contention of learned senior counsel Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Jain, being the father of the deceased Rashika Jain, is that the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner’s late daughter and Abhishek Padia could not have been disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. Counsel submits that the information is required to be kept secret since the investigation in the Alipore P.S. Case against the Agarwals is continuing. Counsel relies on Regulation 71 (g) of Chapter V of the Police Regulations, Calcutta 1968 where the contents of a case diary and statements of witnesses are regarded as privileged information. Counsel submits that the authority acted in breach of Articles 19 and 21 of The Constitution of India. Counsel urges that in the present case, the information was supplied without due regard to the requirements under the aforesaid sections.

4. Mr. Joydip Kar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Agarwal family (respondent nos. 7 to 9), submits that the information furnished was required for the ongoing investigation under the Kalighat P.S. Case with regard to removal of jewellery from the concerned Bank. Counsel submits that there is no provision under the RTI Act which bars disclosure of information which is required as evidence for corroborative purposes. Counsel further submits that the information was in the public domain on the date of furnishing of the information by the police authorities. It is also submitted that the right to privacy is subject to the qualifications provided under the law. Counsel urges that the respondents have a right to self-defence against the charges brought by the Jains and that the information is required for that purpose.

5. Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for Rahul Agarwal (respondent no. 6), being the defacto complainant in the Kalighat P.S. Case and a cousin of Kushal Agarwal (husband of late Rashika Jain) submits that an RTI application was made by Rahul Agarwal to the SPIO on 2nd March, 2022. Counsel relies on a progress report dated 6th February, 2022 in the Kalighat P.S. Case which reflects the name of Abhishek Padia as having emerged from the statements of witnesses. Counsel stresses that section 8(1)(j) has to be read in conjunction with section 11 of the