Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
AMRESH SHARMA - Appellant
Vs.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5951 of 2014
Decided On : 19-03-2019
Warisa Farasat, Adv., Rudrakshi Deo, Adv., Akshay Makhija, Adv., Kriti Awasthi, Adv.
The denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act should be based on valid grounds and should not unjustly restrict access to information related to public activities.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Information Disclosure - Section 8(1)(j) - [RTI Act] - [Information Disclosure] - [Section 8(1)(j)] - The court considered the rejection of information sought under RTI Act, 2005, on the ground of Section 8(1)(j) and held that the denial of information was unwarranted as it related to public activity and did not prejudice the privacy of the individual concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widowed lady, sought information under the RTI Act regarding proceedings conducted by the BSF against her brother-in-law. The CIC partially allowed the appeal, directing the CPIO to provide certain documents but denied others under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was unwarranted as the sought information related to public activity and did not prejudice the privacy of the individual concerned.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of information sought under RTI Act, 2005, on the ground of Section 8(1)(j) was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was unwarranted as the sought information related to public activity and did not prejudice the privacy of the individual concerned.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to provide the information regarding the denied documents within a period of four weeks.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated January 06, 2014 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC, in short) whereby the CIC has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein partially inasmuch as it has directed the CPIO of the respondent Organization to provide the documents at point No. (i), (ii) and (vi) to the petitioner herein and denied the documents at point No. (iii), (iv) and (v) on the ground that the same attracts Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Suffice it to state that the information, which was sought by the petitioner from the CPIO of the respondent Organization were the following:-
(i) Complaint lodged by Mrs. Amresh Sharma;
(ii) Charge-sheet against Mr. Kailash Chand, D.I.G. (Udaipur);
(iii) Statements of all the P.W. (prosecution witnesses) examined by the G.S.F.C.;
(iv) Statements of all the D.W. (defence witnesses) examined by the G.S.F.C.
(v) All the exhibits produced in the G.S.F.C.;
(vi) Judgment by G.S.F.C.
3. There is no dispute that the respondent had complied with the directions of the CIC with regard to documents at (i), (ii) and (vi) above. The only issue which needs to be considered is, whether the rejection of the information sought by the petitioner with regard to documents at point (iii), (iv) and (v) above, on the ground that the same attracts Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, is justified.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she is a widowed lady whose husband expired in a road accident, leaving behind four young children. Taking advantage of her state, her brother-in-law, who was already married, conducted a sham second marriage with her. He not only left her without any maintenance and forced her to conduct multiple abortions, but also transferred various properties inherited by her from her late husband to his own name. Her brother-in-law namely Kailash Chand was also a D.I.G. in the Border Security Force and such a second marriage was a civil offence under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act.
5. The petitioner filed a complaint with the BSF on June 18, 2009 alleging that Kailash Chand had deceitfully induced her to have conjugal relations with him by making her believe that they were lawfully married and that he had improperly acquired and disposed of immovable properties belonging to her and to others. A trial was held by the General Security Force Court (for short 'G.S.F.C.') established under Section 64 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act). Two separate charge sheets were framed by the G.S.F.C. The first charge sheet was issued under Section 46 of the BSF Act, which is "sexual intercourse caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code." The second charge sheet was under Section 40 of the BSF Act, that is "an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force". It appears that the G.S.F.C. has acquitted Kailash Chand of the charge of illegal acquisition of property, which according to the petitioner ought to have been inherited by the petitioner and her children. The petitioner being not satisfied with the decision of the G.S.F.C., had on March 06, 2013 filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer demanding certified copies of the aforesaid six documents. On March 20, 2013, the PIO has rejected the application on the ground that the Border Security Force is a security organization listed in the second schedule of the RTI Act in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act and has been given exemption from application of the provisions of the Act.
6. On April 10, 2013 petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act pointing out that the information sought was not excluded from Section 24 of the RTI Act as it related to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violations. On April 29, 2013, the First Appellate Authority of the BSF dismissed the appeal on the gr
