Back
2011 (5) CTC 376, 2011 (5) LW 151
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M.Y. EQBAL & T.S. SIVAGNANAM
S. Vijayalakshmi
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Another
W.P.No.14788 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 09-09-2011
(B)Right to Information Act, 2005(22 of 2005)-Sec.8, 24-Constitution of India-Art.14-Fundamental right-Information-Right to information-Exemption-Security-Intelligence-Provisions of Sec.8(1) and Sec.24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are exclusive of each other and operate in different fields.
Therefore, there is a vital distinction between the exemption from disclosure of information contemplated under section 8(1) of the Act to that of the exemption of the organisation themselves and the information furnished by them to the Government under section 24(1) of the Act. Therefore, these two provisions are exclusive of each other and one cannot substitute for the other. Therefore, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the exemptions contemplated under section 8(1) of the RTI Act there would be no necessity for a blanket exemption under section 24(1) of the Act. This contention, in our view, is wholly misconceived. Para 21
(C)Right to Information Act, 2005(22 of 2005)-Sec.8, 24-Constitution of India-Art.14-Fundamental right-Information-Right to information-Exemption-Condition-Human rights-Corruption-Provisions in Sec.24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 exempting an organisation from the purview of that Act is not blanket and the same is subject to the condition that it has to furnish information regarding corruption and human rights violation.
Therefore, it can hardly be stated to be case of a whole sale exemption or a blanket exemption. If an RTI applicant comes with a query alleging corruption in any of the Agencies or Organisations, listed out in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such information sought for is bound to be provided and the protection under section 24(1) cannot be availed of. Similar is the case relating to violation of human rights. Therefore, the safeguard is inbuilt in the Statute so as to ensure that even in respect of the Agencies or Organisations listed out in the Second Schedule are not totally excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. Para 22
(D)Right to Information Act, 2005(22 of 2005)-Sec.8, 24-Fundamental right-Information-Right to information-Exemption-CBI-Security-Intelligence-CBI is both intelligence organisation and security agency for the purpose of Sec.24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
There is great value to having criminal tips, quantitative forecasting and other ways of predicting the crime and such predictions could be described as intelligence. From the long list of cases, which have been entrusted to CBI, it cannot be denied that intelligence–led approach has enabled CBI to make headway in the sensitive cases which have or had a direct bearing on the national and internal security. Therefore, we are convinced that the CBI could very well be termed as an intelligence agency of the Government of India.’ Para 28
(E)Right to Information Act, 2005(22 of 2005)-Sec.8, 24-Constitution of India-Art.14-Fundamental right-Information-Right to information-Exemption-CBI-Arbitrariness-Exemption granted to CBI under Sec.24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the purview of the Act is valid.
In the light of the various sensitive cases which are being handled by CBI, it cannot be denied that they have a direct bearing not only the national security, but also the financial security of the country. Therefore we are convinced that CBI would qualify to be defined as a Security Organisation as well. Therefore, we find no error in the decision of the Government of India to include the CBI in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act. Para 29
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. By way of this Public Interest Litigation, the notification issued by the Government of India in G.S.R.No. 442E, dated 09.06.2011, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) within the ambit of the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2000 (RTI Act) has been questioned as being ultra vires Section 24 of the RTI Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. According to the petitioner, in the light of the various scams, the country has become rudderless in the war on corruption and at this juncture, the Government instead of becoming more transparent has become reactionary by resorting to Section 24 of the RTI Act by granting blanket exemption to the CBI. It is further contended that the respondents over looked the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act excluding information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation from being exempted under Section 24 of the Act. Further, Section 24 exempts only intelligence and security agencies and CBI is an investigating agency cannot be granted a blanket exemption. Further, it is contended that the plea that investigative data require confidentiality has been adequately taken care in Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. It is further contended that Section 24(3) of the Act mandates that every notification issued under Section 24(2) shall be laid before each house of Parliament, which failure renders the exemption null and void. It is the further case of the petitioner that the exemption is bound to create a chaos as several writ petitions will be filed challenging the orders passed by the Central Information Commission in their decisions against the CBI, since the CIC has no power to set aside the notification.
3. The first respondent has filed the counter affidavit inter alia contending that the exemption granted to CBI under Section 24 is not a blanket exemption inasmuch as it is subject to the provisos to Section 24 of the Act. The exemption was granted after the Government received the representation from CBI stating that difficulty were being faced by them in their working due to the queries raised under the RTI Act and such exemption was granted on the basis of the legal opinion received that CBI qualifies as a security and intelligence organisation under Section 24 of the Act. In the representation made by CBI, it was stated that cases handled by them are very sensitive in nature where inputs are based on intelligence collected which may relate to the security of the State. It is further stated that collection of intelligence leads to registration of cases and then trial. In many sensitive cases the collection of intelligence and the process of investigation and trial are intertwined and cannot be separated. The list of important cases pertaining to National security dealt by CBI has been furnished. It was further submitted that intelligence plays a vital role in every aspect of the functioning of CBI. Many of the important and sensitive cases are registered on the basis of intelligence inputs, information with regard to modus operandi and sources, which are an essential part of investigation by CBI, are very important and any disclosure of such information may not only jeopardize the functioning of CBI in future investigations but also public safety and national security. It is further submitted that CBI represented it has developed its unique processes for functioning where each officer is given full freedom to express his/her views independently, this helps in bringing to the fore every facet of the issue under consideration, which helps in taking a balanced final decision in the matter. It was felt that disclosures under RTI may lead to targeting of officers which may ultimately affect the credibility of CBI which would not be in national interest. That CBI brought to the notice of the Government that entire investigation and trial of CBI cases is under close scrutiny of the courts and
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
