Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Union of India - Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Singh Bali - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6341 of 2015 and CM Nos. 11546 of 2015 & 35797 of 2016 W.P.(C) 1803 of 2018 and CM No. 7410 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Chawla, Ms. Kalyani Lal and Mr. Sangram Hooda.
The denial of information under the RTI Act must be reasonable and in the interest of public order. The RTI Act must be construed in the interest of public order, and any exclusionary clause must be read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) - Summary of Acts and Sections: RTI Act, 2005, Section 19(3); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 19 - The court held that the information sought by the respondent was not excluded from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) and was not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The court emphasized that the denial of information could impede the course of justice and that the RTI Act must be construed in the interest of public order. The court also found that the actions of the First Appellate Authority in forwarding the RTI application to the CBI were without authority of law. The court dismissed the petitions and observed that the conduct of withholding information could invite punitive measures under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Chief Postmaster General, sought information under the RTI Act regarding the sanction of prosecution against him. The concerned PIO denied the information, citing that it could impede the process of investigation due to pending criminal prosecution. The respondent filed appeals, which were allowed by the CIC, directing the concerned PIO to provide the information. The petitioner (UOI) challenged these orders, contending that the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought by the respondent was not excluded from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) and was not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The court also observed that the actions of the First Appellate Authority in forwarding the RTI application to the CBI were without authority of law. The court dismissed the petitions and observed that the conduct of withholding information could invite punitive measures under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the information sought by the respondent was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and whether it was excluded from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of information could impede the course of justice and that the RTI Act must be construed in the interest of public order. The court also found that the actions of the First Appellate Authority in forwarding the RTI application to the CBI were without authority of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and observed that the conduct of withholding information could invite punitive measures under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner (UOI) has filed the present petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 20.01.2015 (impugned in W.P(C) 6341/2015) and 30.06.2017 (impugned in W.P.(C) 1803/2018) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’) allowing the second appeals preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the RTI Act’).The said orders are, hereafter, referred to as the impugned orders.
2. By the impugned orders, the CIC has rejected the PIO‘s (Public Information Officer‘s) contention that the disclosure of the file notings pertaining to sanction of prosecution of the respondent would impede the process of investigation and, therefore, the information as sought is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the CIC has directed the concerned PIO to provide the information as sought by the respondent.
3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders, essentially, on the ground that the information as sought by the respondent is exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is further contended that the documents as sought by the respondent include information received from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is a third party and is also excluded from the purview of the RTI Act in terms of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Factual Background
4. The respondent was working as a Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra and Goa Circle, Mumbai. On 24.02.2010, the respondent was caught by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) while allegedly accepting bribe and, on the next day, he was arrested. Consequently, by an order dated 04.03.2010, he was placed under deemed suspension from his post with effect from 25.02.2010.
5. Thereafter, the CBI conducted an inquiry and submitted its report on 22.10.2010. In view of the said report, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) approved sanction for prosecution as well as Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major penalty against the respondent. On 13.12.2010, sanction of prosecution of the respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was issued with the approval of the competent authority. Further, RDA was also commenced against the respondent. A charge-sheet was issued and an Inquiry Authority was appointed for the said purpose.
6. On 16.08.2011, the respondent filed an application under the RTI Act seeking copies of certain documents and files in relation to the sanction of prosecution against him.
7. The concerned PIO responded by a letter dated 27.09.2011, denying the said request. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal on 15.10.2011 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which was also rejected by an order dated 18.11.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The second appeal was allowed by an order dated 20.01.2015 (which is impugned in W.P. (C) 6341/2015) directing the concerned PIO to provide the respondent with the information and the documents as sought by him – File notings relating to the sanction of his prosecution and the copies of certain documents. This led the petitioner to file first of the present petitions – W.P. (C) 6341/2015 – before this Court.
8. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Central Government once again accorded sanction of prosecution, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the respondent by an order dated 03.03.2015. It was alleged that the respondent held disproportionate assets during the period 01.04.2002 to 25.02.2010. Thereafter, on 26.03.2015, the CBI filed a charge sheet in the Special Court, Greater Bombay against the respondent.
9. On 18.02.2017, the respondent once again took the recourse to the RTI Act and filed an application dated 18.02.2017 seeking the following information:-
“1. A
