The main legal point established is that the sensitive nature of information, its potential impact on ongoing investigations, and the provisions of the RTI Act and mutual legal assistance treaties justify non-disclosure under specific exemptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 1st December, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) directing the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Union of India to disclose to the respondent No.1 information seeker information which according to the petitioners is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(f) of the Act.

2. It is the case of the petitioners:

(i) that the respondent No.1 information seeker vide application dated 6th February, 2009 sought information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of MEA, (1) whether a Commission Rogatoire had been received from Mr. Marc Tappolet, Judge d’instruction, Geneva Canton, Switzerland; (2) copy of the Commission Rogatoire; and, (3) action taken on the Commission Rogatoire;

(ii) that the information was denied seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(a) & (f) of the RTI Act;

(iii) that being dissatisfied, the respondent No.1 information seeker filed an appeal on 17th March, 2009 with the Appellate Authority;

(iv) that the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 28th April, 2009 upheld the decision of the CPIO and dismissed the appeal reasoning that the information is also exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act;

(v) that the respondent No.1 information seeker by way of second appeal approached the CIC which, vide the impugned order dated 1st December, 2009 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to supply the information;

(vi) that the petitioners vide their letter dated 21st December, 2009 informed the respondent No.1 information seeker that MEA had received a Note Verbale from the Embassy of Switzerland in New Delhi for investigation into the case of “Mr. Nair and forwarding a copy of the Note Verbale available with the Ministry and informing that the other information was available with the Ministry of Home Affairs”;

(vii) that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) vide its letter dated 4th January, 2010 to the respondent No.1 information seeker further informed that after consideration of the Letter Rogatoire / Note Verbale, the Interpol Wing of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had been directed to get the same executed through Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI, Delhi and as per the information available with Legal Cell, CBI had already forwarded the report to MEA for onward transmission to the requesting country;

(viii) that the respondent No.1 information seeker applied to the CIC under Section 19 of the Act averring non-compliance of the order dated 1st December, 2009;

(ix) that the CIC vide its order dated 24th June, 2010 observed that though information against queries No.1 & 3 had been supplied but information against query No.2 being sensitive, need not be given to the respondent No.1 information seeker;

(x) that the respondent No.1 information seeker aggrieved there from filed W.P.(C) No.5086/2010 which was allowed merely on the ground that the CIC had no power to review its decision dated 1st December, 2009 and the order dated 24th June, 2010 of CIC quashed. Hence, the need to challenge the order dated 1st December, 2009.

3. The petition came up before this Court first on 5th May, 2014 when while issuing notice thereof, considering the fact that the CIC itself had in the order dated 24th June, 2010 agreed that the information earlier directed to be disclosed was sensitive and would give an opportunity to the accused to influence and manipulate the outcome of the investigation by destroying and distorting evidence and was required to be protected by the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) executed between India and Switzerland, the disclosure of further information in pursuance to the order dated 1st December, 2009 was stayed. The counsel for the respondent no.1 appeared and though sought time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. The counsels were heard and ord