Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi - Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commission & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 11092 of 2017 & CM Nos. 45346, 45348 of 2017 & 2610 of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. C.K. Bhatt
For the Respondents: Mr. Anurag Pandey
The main legal point established is that the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act exempts intelligence and security organizations from the Act, with exceptions for allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The interpretation of 'human rights violations' and its application to the information sought was central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - CBI - Section 24(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of information sought by a CBI official under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The CBI claimed exemption from disclosure under Section 24(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the information sought by the CBI official did not fall within the scope of 'human rights violations' as specified in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The court also noted the CIC's error in not referring to and following its earlier decision in a similar matter.
Issues: The key issues were the applicability of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to the CBI, and whether the information sought by the CBI official constituted 'human rights violations' under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as an exclusionary clause, exempting intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule from the Act, with the exception of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The court clarified that the information sought did not constitute 'human rights violations' and cited relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and disposing of the pending applications with the mentioned observations.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 09.06.2017 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘the CIC’) allowing the second appeal (Appeal No.CIC/SB/A/2016/001171/MP) preferred by respondent no.2 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’).
2. By the impugned order, the CIC rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter ‘the CBI’) was outside the purview of Section 24 of the Act and was therefore not obliged to disclose the information as sought for by respondent no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to disclose the information as sought for by respondent no.2.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-
3.1 Respondent no.2 is an Officer with the CBI and is currently posted in STF, CBI (H.O.), New Delhi. Respondent no.2 was transferred from Imphal to Delhi on 12.09.2013. The CBI initiated departmental proceedings against respondent no.2 under Rule 14 of the CCA (CCS) Rules, 1965. The petitioner further claims that the allegations made against respondent no. 2 are grave as well as sensitive in nature.
3.2 Respondent no.2 filed an application dated 01.02.2016 under the Act seeking certain information relating to the disciplinary proceedings - Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major penalty - initiated against him. The petitioner declined to disclose the information sought on the ground that the CBI was placed in the Second Schedule to the Act and thus was outside the purview of the Act.
3.3 Respondent no.2 filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority which was also rejected by an order dated 17.03.2016.
3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.2 preferred a second appeal (CIC/SB/A/2016/000656/MP) before the CIC which was also rejected by an order dated 16.03.2017.
3.5 Respondent no.2, thereafter, once again filed an application dated 29.04.2016 under the Act seeking certain information relating to the RDA for major penalty initiated against respondent no.2.
3.6 Respondent no.2’s request for information was denied for the same reason as it was denied earlier; that is, the CBI was outside the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24 of the Act. Respondent no.2’s first appeal against the denial of information did not meet with any success and was rejected by the First Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.05.2016.
3.7 Respondent no.2 preferred the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, which was allowed by the impugned order.
4. It is apparent from the plain reading of the impugned order that the CIC was of the view that the exclusionary clause of section 24(1) of the Act was not available in respect of information sought by its own officials regarding their service matters. The CIC held that since the matter involved the case of the CBI’s official (respondent no.2), he had the right to know information regarding his case. The CIC further held that the petitioner had to prove that the information sought for by respondent no.2 was of the nature as specified under Section 24 of the Act. The relevant extract of the impugned order is set out below:-
“6. However, the mater at present involves the case of CBI's own official and the appellant has a right to know about his own case and a public authority which seeks to claim the exemption u/s 24 of the Act from disclosure of information, available with it and pertaining to its own employee/official, has to show/prove that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 24 of the Act, to the satisfaction of the Commission. The CPIO has, without applying his mind and keeping in view the very object of the RTI Act, 2005 r/w Section 24, denied information to the appellant on no legal grounds. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of B.S. Mathur vs. PIO, is relevant in this regard:
“19.
