Back
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
RTI Act - Exemption from Disclosure - Section 8(1)(h) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, UOI, filed petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging orders passed by the CIC allowing second appeals under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The respondent, a Chief Postmaster General, sought information related to the sanction of his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was denied by the concerned PIO. The respondent filed appeals, which were allowed by the CIC, directing the concerned PIO to provide the information. The petitioner contended 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 denial of information was not justified under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the petitioner failed to establish how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of the offender. The court also noted 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 dismissed the petitions and observed that the conduct of withholding information could invite punitive measures under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Issues: The issues involved the exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the denial of information sought by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of information must be justified under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act by establishing how the disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of the offender. The court also emphasized that the RTI Act must be construed in the interest of public order.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court observed that the conduct of withholding information could invite punitive measures under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasizes that the denial of information under the RTI Act must be justified by demonstrating how disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution, and the Act should be interpreted in the interest of public order (!) (!) .
The petitioner challenged orders that directed disclosure of information related to the sanction of prosecution, asserting that such information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act (!) .
The court found that the denial of the information was not justified under Section 8(1)(h), as the petitioner failed to establish how disclosure would impede the investigation or prosecution of the offender (!) (!) .
The court noted that after the filing of a charge sheet, the investigation stage is considered over, and therefore, the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) would require the public authority to demonstrate how disclosure would still impede prosecution (!) .
The court clarified that the RTI Act is a constitutional right, and any exclusion must be reasonably construed in the context of public order and the specific provisions of the Act (!) (!) .
It was observed that information which could assist an offender in establishing innocence or pursuing a defense cannot be denied solely because it might impede prosecution; the key consideration is whether disclosure would interfere with the process of investigation or prosecution (!) (!) .
The court ruled that the information sought, which pertains to allegations of corruption and is not received from a third-party organization covered under Section 24(1), falls within the scope of the RTI Act and is not exempt (!) (!) .
The procedure of forwarding an RTI application to a third party under Section 11 was deemed inapplicable in this context, as the information relates to government departments and not third-party confidential information (!) (!) .
The court observed that the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds or factual basis to claim that disclosure would impede the investigation or prosecution, and general assertions are inadequate (!) .
The court affirmed that the public authority's decision to withhold information must be based on concrete reasons, and mere apprehensions are insufficient to justify exemption (!) .
It was noted that the petitioner’s conduct of withholding information despite court orders could invite punitive measures under the RTI Act, and the respondent has the right to file a complaint in this regard (!) .
The petitions were ultimately dismissed, and the court held that the orders directing disclosure should be complied with, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate valid grounds for exemption (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
