Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES - Petitioner
Versus
SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5547 of 2017 & CM No. 23333 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Gurpreet Shah Singh, Dy. CIT (O&D), CBDT.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that only information impeding the process of investigation can be denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that information received from specified organizations, as per Section 24(1), is excluded from the Act unless it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
Headnote:
CBDT - Right to Information Act - 8(1)(h), 24(1) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and their applicability to the information sought by the respondent. The court clarified the scope of exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) and the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) in relation to information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). The court emphasized that only information impeding the process of investigation can be denied under Section 8(1)(h) and that information received from specified organizations, as per Section 24(1), is excluded from the Act unless it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding photocopies of letters and responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT's letter. CBDT claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) and excluded from the Act by virtue of Section 24(1).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the information sought did not impede any ongoing investigation and therefore could not be denied under Section 8(1)(h). It also clarified that information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is excluded from the Act under Section 24(1), unless it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the information sought by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24(1) and their application to the specific facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Central Information Commission and clarified that the information sought by the respondent was not excluded from the scope of the Act, unless it pertained to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner (hereafter “CBDT”) impugns an order dated 29.05.2017 (hereafter “the impugned order”) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter “the CIC”) in a second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter “the Act”).
2. By the impugned order, the CIC has, inter alia, directed disclosure of the information sought by the respondent and photocopies of responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT’s letter dated 11.08.2015. According to CBDT, the said information is excluded from the scope of the Act as it emanates from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). The said office is placed in the Second Schedule of the Act and, thus, any information received from the said office is excluded from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24(1) of the Act. CBDT also claims that the said information is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to consider the aforesaid controversy are as under:-
4. The respondent filed an application dated 16.11.2015 seeking the following information under the Act:-
“(1) Photocopies of the letters no. F. No. 282/4/2012-IT(Inv) dated 1.10.2013 and No. 282/04/2012-IT(Inv. V)/140 dated 9.7.2015.
(2) Photocopies of the responses received from the DGs to the letter No. 282/4/012-IV (Inv. V)/192 dated 11.08.2015 from Shri Rajat Mittal, Under Secretary (Inv. V) CBDT.”
5. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of CBDT responded to the petitioner’s application by a letter dated 28.12.2015. He did not provide the photocopies of the letters as sought for at point no.1 but briefly indicated the contents of those letters. Insofar as the information sought at point no.2 is concerned, the CPIO responded as under:-
“Since, the matter is under investigation, hence under the provisions of Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 (Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders) information cannot be provided at this stage.”
6. Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter “the FAA”). The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 11.02.2016, whereby the FAA directed the CPIO to provide photocopies of the relevant letters as requested by the respondent as per point no.1 of his application. In respect of the respondent’s request for responses received from the DGs to the letter dated 11.08.2015 is concerned, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision that the said information was exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act and, therefore, could not be provided at that stage. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to convey the outcome of the investigations once the same are concluded.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the FAA rejecting the request for furnishing the responses received from the DGs, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the CIC. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned order and the CPIO was directed to supply the information sought for by the respondent.
8. The controversy relates to the verification of the affidavits filed by the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) disclosing their assets to the Election Commission. The respondent had submitted a list of MPs and MLAs whose assets have allegedly increased more than fivefold after the previous election (that is, during the term of their office as elected representatives after the previous election).
9. The said list of MPs and MLAs were forwarded to the DGs for verification. By a letter dated 11.08.2015, the following instructions were issued to the DGs with regard to the list of MPs and MLAs provided by the respondent:-
“The undersigned is directed to convey that any such case, featuring in the list that is yet to be verified, should be g
