The exemption under the RTI Act in disclosing information must be considered in light of public safety and security, sovereignty, and integrity of the country.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner-Mr. Estesham Qutubuddin Siddique is a death row convict, who is currently in the Central Prison, Nagpur, Maharashtra. He has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 13th June, 2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, ‘CIC’) under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Vide the impugned order, the CIC rejected the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner, challenging the order dated 10th November 2017 passed by Respondent No. 1-CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Division-I) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, and also non-issuance of the First Appeal Order (FAO) by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act qua his RTI application.

4. The Petitioner has been convicted in the 11th July, 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Case (‘7/11 bomb blast’). The 7/11 bomb blast was stated to be carried out by the terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen (hereinafter, ‘the Organisation’).

5. The Petitioner filed an RTI application on 16th October, 2017 seeking the following information (‘said information’) from Respondent No. 1-CPIO:—

“a. Subject matter of the information : Indian Mujahideen

b. The period to which the information relates : 2008-till date

c. Description of the information required : Kindly furnish the copies of the following documents related to ban on Indian Mujahideen under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:

i. Background notes.

ii. Reports of all state government, iii. Notifications.

d. Whether the information is required by post or in person : By Speed/Registered Post”

6. The said application was filed with the Deputy Secretary (IS-II)-CPIO, MHA, GOI. The CPIO replied on 10th November, 2017 and claimed exemption qua the said information at serial nos. (i) and (ii) above in terms of Section 8(1)(g) and Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Insofar as the Notification issued by Respondent No. 1-MHA under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) declaring ‘Indian Mujahideen’ as a terrorist organisation is concerned, a copy of the said Notification dated 2nd June, 2010 passed under Section 35(1)(a) of the UAPA was provided to the Petitioner.

7. The First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act against the reply of the CPIO was filed by the Petitioner on 27th November 2017 raising grounds to the effect that the backgrounds notes and reports of all the State Governments in the said information, ought not to be denied under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It was also urged that such information would not be ‘exempted information’ under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Since the organisation has already been declared as a terrorist organisation under the provisions of UAPA, the purpose of the said information retained by the Respondents has already been completed. Thus, there is no such information that would be confidential for being retained under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Arpit Bhargava, also submitted that the said First Appeal has remained pending since no order was passed by the FAA, therefore the Petitioner approached the CIC by way of a Second Appeal reiterating the same grounds. Vide its impugned decision dated 13th June, 2019, the CIC followed the decision of the ld. Single Judge in Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, [(2019) 256 DLT 411] wherein it was held that though the information would not be exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, however, under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the said information would be exempted from disclosure to the RTI applicant. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:—

“7. In view of the above, the exemption provided under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act will not be applicable to the instant case. The Commission, however, agrees with the submissions of the respondent tha