Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Gulab Singh Rana - Appellant
Versus
The Central Public Information Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 37231 of 2016
Decided On : 08-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), Article 14 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 498A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 24, 8(1) (d), (g) (h), 19 (1), 19 (3), 22, 8(1)(h), 8 - Indian Trusts Act - Section 88 - Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 - Section 2(1)(d), 11 – Equality before Law – Criminal conspiracy - Restriction in interest of public order - Power on State Government to exempt any intelligence and security organisation established by it from purview of the provisions - Pertaining to allegation of corruption - Whether case of petitioner would come within ambit of the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act - Whether disclosure of information sought by Petitioner to extent not supplied to him yet would “impede the investigation” in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act – Held, Court is of considered opinion that such informations, if provided, it will create unnecessary hampering of the Disciplinary Proceedings or prosecution - Even an apprehension in this regard is sufficient is to deny information to applicants - Word “Apprehension” is employed in Act, so as to protect prosecution and process of investigation, which should not be paralyzed at any circumstances in public interest - When investigation is undertaken, then authorities must be provided with an amount of discretion for purpose of culling out truth in respect of allegations - Thus, any hindrance in between, would undoubtedly paralyze investigation process, which would dilute prosecution and would extend unlawful benefit to accused persons - Rights of both parties should be considered by Courts - It is not only right of information seekers, but right of information provider must also considered by this Court - Practical and pragmatic approach coupled with rules of constructive interpretation is of paramount importance to take a decision in such circumstances - In event of committing any lapses, same would provide unlawful gain to accused/delinquent persons, which would result in destruction of prosecution or case of Disciplinary Authority and larger public interest involved in matter of criminal prosecution is also to be considered by Court - Court in aforementioned paragraphs, Court is able to form a concrete opinion that informations and documents sought for by petitioner are rightly rejected by Public Information Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, First Appellate Authority and finally by Central Information Commission/Second Appellate Authority - Writ Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Right to Information (RTI) Act generally grants citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, with certain exemptions aimed at protecting public interest, investigations, and confidentiality (!) (!) .
Exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act allow authorities to deny information if its disclosure would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. However, such exemption requires the authority to provide satisfactory, reasonable, and material reasons for the claim that disclosure would hamper the investigation or prosecution (!) (!) .
The scope of the exemption is to prevent the paralysis of ongoing investigations or legal proceedings, safeguarding the integrity of criminal and disciplinary processes. The subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is a crucial factor in determining whether information can be withheld (!) (!) .
Once investigations are completed and charge sheets are filed, the justification for withholding certain information diminishes, and such information may need to be disclosed unless it specifically impedes ongoing proceedings (!) (!) .
Information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, especially in organizations established by the government but listed in the Second Schedule, are generally not excluded from disclosure, particularly when such information pertains to completed investigations or is relevant for transparency and accountability (!) (!) (!) .
Exemptions based on the nature of the organization (e.g., intelligence or security agencies) depend on whether the information relates to core functions or sensitive activities. Information that does not touch upon sensitive or confidential activities and relates to allegations of corruption or human rights violations should not be withheld (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the exemption clauses should be narrowly construed and that the fundamental right to information is a constitutional right, subject to reasonable restrictions for public interest, investigation integrity, and confidentiality (!) (!) .
The power to exempt organizations from the RTI Act is limited and must be exercised within the framework of the law, ensuring that information related to corruption or human rights violations remains accessible unless it directly hampers ongoing investigations or prosecutions (!) (!) .
The principles of transparency and accountability advocate for the disclosure of information that can dispel favoritism, nepotism, or arbitrariness, especially when such information is not of a confidential or sensitive nature (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework encourages a balanced approach where the rights of information seekers are recognized, but the need to protect the integrity of investigations, criminal proceedings, and sensitive organizational functions is equally upheld. Decisions to deny information must be well-reasoned and based on material facts, with a focus on preventing interference with ongoing processes (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice regarding this document.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in Second Appeal No. SA/ UG/ 15/ f9219ydtm in File No.CIC/SH/A/2015/001081 dated, 21.7.2016 and to quash the same consequently, direct the 1st and 3rd respondents to provide the point-wise information sought for by the petitioner vide, RTI Application dated, 30.9.2014.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the legality of the findings arrived by the 4th respondent/The Central Information Commission in order 21.07.2016 and to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to provide point wise information sought for by the petitioner vide Right to Information Act (RTI Act, 2005) application dated 30.09.2014.
2. The petitioner was working as General Manager, in Marketing Department, Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Central Office at Chennai. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bank Securities and Fraud Cell at New Delhi, has registered an F.I.R on 23.02.2012 and arrayed the petitioner as accused No.12 for the alleged offences under Section 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The petitioner approached the Central Public Information Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Central Office at Chennai under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide an application dated 30.09.2014, seeking the following informations namely:
2. Copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of my Disciplinary Authority for giving sanction for my prosecution based upon my reply date 01.12.2012 to the first explanation letter dated 18.10.2012 issued to me.
3. Copy of first advice given by CVC, New Delhi.
4. The outcome of the reconciliatory meeting between my Disciplinary Authority and CBI called by Central Vigilance Commissioner at the office of CVC, New Delhi.
5. The copy of any further clarification sought by CVC after the reconciliatory meeting and if so, copy of Bank's reply thereto.
6. The copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of my Disciplinary Authority of giving sanction for my prosecution based upon my reply dated 03.07.2014 to the second explanation letter dated 20.06.2014 issued to me.
7. The copy of latest correspondence from CVC requesting/advising the bank again for sanction of my prosecution.
8. The copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of my present Disciplinary Authority based upon which the permission is given by the Bank to CBI for my prosecution.
9. Copy of Draft sanction supplied by CBI.”
4. The above RTI application was rejected by the Central Public Information Officer vide order dated 13.10.2014, on the ground that the informations sought for by the petitioner and documents are exempted under Section 8(1) (d), (g) (h) of the RTI Act.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of the Act on 27.10.2014, but the first appeal was dismissed by confirming the decision of the Public Information Officer on 16.12.2014. The petitioner preferred a second appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Central information Commission at New Delhi on 30.03.2015 and the said appeal was also rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Fundamental Rights ensured and the Statutory Rights conferred under the Right to Information Act have been unreasonably denied in the present case. Section 8 (h) regarding exemption is not applicable in respect of the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court regarding Section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Sub Section (1) to Section 24 of
Documents related to prosecution sanction in ongoing corruption case exempt under RTI Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24; disclosure would impede trial, endanger safety, reveal sources despite completed i....
The notification exempting the Vigilance Department from the RTI Act is ultra vires as it contravenes the RTI Act's provisions for disclosing information on allegations of corruption and human rights....
RTI disclosure of sanction files and vigilance notings denied during pending CBI corruption trial to protect investigations under Sections 8(1)(g), (h), (j).
The RTI Act applies to the CBI, and the proviso to Section 24 allows for the disclosure of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The CBI must establish the ....
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
