IMPORTANT POINT
Newspaper reports are considered hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon to prove allegations. Affidavits filed by responsible officers can be considered as credible evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to death in the Mumbai Twin Blast known as 7/11 bomb blast case which took place in the year 2006. The Petitioner was Accused No.4. The Petitioner was sentenced to a punishment of death for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, under Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Section 3(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and apart from this, the Petitioner had also been sentenced for various offences under the provision of IPC.

2. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition had made an RTI application, on the 04.09.2017, to the CPIO Intelligence Bureau seeking a copy of an alleged Intelligence Bureau report, suggesting false implication and arrest of accused persons, placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2009 for review of evidence in the bomb blast case. The information as sought for by the Petitioner was rejected by the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide a letter dated 21.09.2017, on the ground that the agency from which the information was sought for by the Petitioner is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1).

3. The Petitioner proceeded to file a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the designated First Appellate Authority (FAA), on 23.10.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner before the authority, has pleaded that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act would not apply as his case is one of human rights violation and that is the information sought is respect of an alleged human right violation. The Petitioner further adds that the officers involved in the investigation of the Twin Blast case were awarded various medals and other monetary benefits for the arrest of innocent persons, an act of corruption that the Petitioner alleges pertains to allegations of corruption and hence cannot be excluded under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. In its response dated 15.11.2017, the FAA, rejected the appeal of the Petitioner on the grounds that the order of the CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, was in according the provisions of the RTI Act.

4. Aggrieved, the Petitioner proceeded to file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). In the appeal the Petitioner reaffirmed the grounds mentioned in his first appeal. The CIC in its order upheld the decision of the CPIO and FAA and stated that the query raised by the Petitioner fails to satisfy two preconditions carved out under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act: that are, (i) the information being sought must relate to allegations of corruption/human right violations; and (ii) the same must be expressly barred under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The CIC found that the query raised by the Petitioner fails to satisfy either of the essential preconditions and hence is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Petitioner proceeded to challenge the order passed by CIC in way of W.P. (C) 9773/2018 in front of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the grounds that the information sought by the Petitioner relates to allegations of violation of human rights. The Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 16.01.2019 held that the Petitioner's application does relate to violation of human rights and the CIC's conclusion was erroneous. The Coordinate Bench further remanded the matter back to the CIC to be considered afresh.

6. Subsequently, the CIC heard the matter afresh where the CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, contended that the no such report, as claimed by the Petitioner, was submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, hence no information can be provided in this regard. The CIC passed an order directing the CPIO to file an affidavit deposing that no such report was submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2009 and hence no such information can be provided to the appellant, disposing the appeal.

7. The aforesaid Order passed by the Ld CIC is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

8. The short question which arises for consideration before