Exempt organizations under the RTI Act must disclose information related to public interest, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner – Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) questions the order dated 04.06.2024, by which, the 1^st respondent – Central Information Commission, New Delhi directed to inform the 2nd respondent the status of action taken on his complaint (as mentioned in RTI Application) as on date of RTI Application and at present; if the said Application has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome should be provided to him within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

2. While entertaining the Writ Petition, on 23.07.2024, this Court directed stay of the order impugned prima facie, on the ground that the said order was passed without considering the fact that the Application filed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2022; Appeal was preferred under Section 19 (1) and the same was also disposed of on 14.12.2022 by the appellate authority.

3. The brief facts relevant for deciding the Writ Petition are: the 2nd respondent filed an Application under Section 6 (1) of the Act on 03.11.2022 seeking certain information relating to the complaint filed by him with regard to binami transactions carried on by Sri M.V. Sharma with PAN No. AHMPM 1756E along with Sri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD & CEO of Transtory Infrastructure Company, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The said Application was rejected vide reply dated 17.02.2022, relying on the judgment in Katapally Sathya Reddy v. ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad dated 23.10.2020, on the ground that Section 24 (2) of the Act exempts certain government organisations which find mention in Schedule II, as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) is included vide Official Gazette dated 28.03.2008 in the list of organisations which are exempted from providing information as per Section 24 . The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit comes under control of the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this office is exempted from providing such information. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal of the 2^nd respondent by order dated 14.12.2022, opining that appellant is inquisitive to know the details of investigation findings and the outcome of his TEP. However, it is noteworthy to affirm that the Office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) has been excluded from the purview of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the 2^nd respondent filed the Second Appeal before the 1^st respondent, who passed the order impugned, as stated supra.

4. The 1st respondent - Commission opined that the broad outcome of the action taken on the Application or status of the complaint / letter should have been informed to the 2^nd respondent under the Act. The Commission relied on the judgment in Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur (W.P.(C) No. 7218 of 2016) dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was observed that ‘by virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 89 (1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taken action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of mis