Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
V. Vidya - Appellant
Versus
The State Chief Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai & Others - Respondents
WP. No. 21847 of 2014
Decided On : 28-03-2023
RTI Act - Exemption - Section 24 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an industrialist, sought information regarding a report from the Special Branch, CID. The State claimed absolute exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, stating that the report was classified and its disclosure would prejudice ongoing proceedings. The petitioner alleged corruption and human rights violations by police officials and sought redress for malicious prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's allegations touched upon corruption and human rights violations, which were exceptions to the exemption under Section 24. The Court rejected the State's claim of absolute exemption and directed the Public Information Officer to supply the report within four weeks.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 24 of the RTI Act, applicability of exemptions, and the petitioner's right to information.
Ratio Decidendi: The exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act is not absolute and is subject to exceptions for corruption and human rights violations. The Court upheld the petitioner's right to information and directed the disclosure of the report.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the Public Information Officer to supply the report sought by the petitioner within four weeks.
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:
The exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act is not absolute and is subject to specific exceptions, particularly concerning information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The RTI Act explicitly excludes certain intelligence and security organizations established by the State from its applicability, but this exclusion is conditional and can be overridden if the information pertains to corruption or human rights violations, which require prior approval from the relevant Information Commission (!) (!) (!) .
The distinction between different organizations, such as the Crime Branch CID (CBCID) and the Special Branch CID (SBCID), is significant. While CBCID may be subject to RTI disclosures, SBCID is generally exempted due to its role as an intelligence agency, and this exemption can be subject to the provisos concerning corruption and human rights violations (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have emphasized the importance of the provisos to Section 24(4), which carve out exceptions allowing the disclosure of information related to corruption and human rights violations, provided that such disclosures are approved by the competent authority and are not arbitrary (!) (!) .
The principle of severability under Section 10 of the RTI Act is critical. When a request involves both exempt and non-exempt parts of a record, the non-exempt portions should be disclosed after proper verification, unless the entire record is classified as exempt (!) (!) (!) .
The classification of documents as "confidential" or "classified" does not automatically justify complete exemption from disclosure. The actual content and relevance to allegations of corruption or rights violations determine whether exemptions apply (!) .
The decision-making process regarding exemptions should involve a careful examination of the records to determine if any part of the information can be reasonably severed and disclosed, especially when the initial rejection is based solely on classification without such analysis (!) (!) .
The legal framework aims to balance transparency, accountability, and national security interests, with a clear emphasis on the importance of safeguarding information related to corruption and human rights violations, but only when justified and properly authorized (!) (!) .
In cases where the information sought involves allegations of misconduct, the authorities must consider the specifics of each request, including the nature of the information and the context, rather than applying blanket exemptions (!) (!) .
Ultimately, courts have the authority to review and quash decisions that fail to properly consider the statutory provisions, especially regarding the application of exemptions and the principle of severability, ensuring that the right to information is upheld within the bounds of law (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the nuanced approach required when dealing with exemptions under the RTI Act, emphasizing the importance of a case-specific, content-based assessment and adherence to statutory procedures.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records made in impugned order in case No.55285 (6413 & 6415)/SCIC/2013 dated 08.01.2014 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to supply necessary copies of all information sought by me including the report of the SBCID.)
1. The petitioner Ms.V.Vidya appears in person and her detailed submissions as well as those of Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Chief Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission/R1 and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader for R2 and R3, being the Deputy Secretary, Home Department and Special Branch, CID., office of the Director General of Police, have been heard.
2. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is one of considerable importance. The petitioner has sought the quash of an order passed by R1 on 08.01.2014 and a consequential direction to supply the information sought for by her, being the report of the Special Branch, CID (in short ‘SBCID’).
3. The petitioner claims to be an industrialist catering to large scale industrial sector. She was also carrying out transactions in real estate and in the course of such activities, engaged with one Mr.K.C.Bose and his associates. According to her, the aforesaid individual and his associates had defrauded her.
4. She alleges that they were engaged in criminal conspiracy, fabrication of documents with the intention of falsifying revenue records and obtaining statutory approvals including approvals of the DTCP fraudulently. She also alleges that they had cheated her of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- pertaining to 140 plots located at Orathur Village, Kanchipuram District.
5. According to the petitioner, they were able to succeed in their fraudulent endeavours by conspiring with prominent police officials who framed and foisted several criminal complaints against her with the sole intention of victimising her. In particular, she names Mr.S.R.Jangid, the then Additional Director General of Police (Economic Offence Wing) in this regard.
6. Both the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General have drawn attention to a slew of litigation inter se the parties, the purpose being to emphasise the strained and acrimonious relationship inter se the parties. Both the sides also lay claim to some measure of success before the Courts in this regard.
7. For his part, Mr.Ravindran draws attention to some Court orders where the petitioner has drawn flak from the Courts for acts of omission and commission, and put to terms. He emphasises that the efforts of the petitioner are not bonafide. The report of the SBCID is a classified document as the Special Branch of the Crime Investigation Department is an organisation exempt from the application of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2007 (in short ‘Act’/’RTI Act’), by virtue of Section 24 thereof. The exemption, according to the State, is absolute and unfettered and no exception can be made in that regard.
8. In any event, proceedings are pending before various authorities and furnishing the information sought for at this stage would prejudice those proceedings. Thus, he also states that the request of the petitioner is premature, would jeopardise the proceedings, and has been rightly rejected.
9. Since the matter involves an interpretation of Section 24 of the Act, I extract the provision hereunder:
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.—
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furni
The exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act is not absolute and is subject to exceptions for corruption and human rights violations.
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....
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 ....
Exempt organizations under the RTI Act must disclose information related to public interest, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
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....
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
