The main legal point established in the judgment is that information pertaining to allegations of human rights violation, even if not excluded under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, may still be subject to exemptions under Section 8 of the Act.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning the order dated 26.03.2018 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’).

2. By the impugned order, the CIC rejected the second appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the RTI Act’). The petitioner had sought information from the Intelligence Bureau (hereafter ‘IB’), which was denied on the ground that the IB is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act and the information sought by the petitioner does not relate to allegations of human rights violation or corruption.

3. The petitioner disputes the above and claims that the information sought by him relates to allegations of human rights violation. Thus, the controversy to be addressed is whether the information sought by the petitioner relates to allegation of violation of human rights.

Factual Background

4. In July 2006, the petitioner was arrested in relation to Mumbai Train Blast case, which happened on 11.07.2006 (commonly known as 7/11 blast case) by the Anti Terrorism squad, Mumbai.

5. In September 2008, members of an organisation referred to as Indian Mujahideen were arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch (DCB-CID) for their involvement in various bomb blasts cases viz. Ahmedabad blast in 2008; Delhi blast in 2008; and Hyderabad blast in 2007. The petitioner states that during investigation by various agencies, it was revealed that members of Indian Mujahideen were also involved in the case of the Mumbai Train Blast (hereafter ‘the 7/11 blast case’).

6. The petitioner claims that the IB collected information about the involvement of Indian Mujahideen from various agencies and prepared a report and placed it before the Home Minister in the year 2009, suggesting review of the evidence in the 7/11 blast case. It is suggested that the said report indicated that Indian Mujahideen and not the earlier accused (including the petitioner) were responsible for the blasts in the Mumbai Trains on 7th July 2006.

7. The petitioner was tried in the 7/11 blast case and was convicted by a judgment dated 30.09.2015 rendered by Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) Court. The petitioner states that the said decision is pending confirmation before the Bombay High Court.

8. On 04.09.2017, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs seeking true copy of the IB report, which was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2009 for review/re-appreciation of evidence in the 7/11 blast case.

9. On 21.09.2017, the concerned CPIO rejected the application and denied the information as sought by the petitioner on the ground that by virtue of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, IB (the Intelligence Bureau) is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid reply of the CPIO, on 23.10.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) seeking the IB report. In his appeal, the petitioner claimed that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act was inapplicable in the present case as it fell within the exceptions carved out under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act: that are, (i) violation of human rights; and (ii) allegation of corruption.

11. The petitioner also relied on the judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi: W.P.(C) 5521/2016 in support of his contention that the information sought by it was not excluded from the scope of Section 24 of the RTI Act.

12. By an order dated 15.11.2017, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO rejecting the petitioner’s request for the information on the ground that IB was excluded from the scope of the RTI by virtue of Section 24 of