Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 753
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Y. K. Sinha, CIC
Smt. Madhuri Devi – Appellant
Versus
PIO, HQ, Assam Rifles – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/ASMRF/A/2018/168377 | CIC/ASMRF/A/2019/106436 | CIC/ASMRF/A/2020/108472 | CIC/ASMRF/A/2018/169188 | CIC/ASMRF/A/2019/108408
For the Appellant: Captain Priyank
For the Respondents: Captain Priyank
The RTI Act allows exemptions but mandates transparency when human rights are implicated, ensuring adequate information is furnished.
Headnote:(A) RTI Act, 2005 - Section 24(1) - Exemption of certain organizations from the Act - Appellant sought information regarding her late husband's service under RTI. Respondents cited exemption but the appeal addressed issues of human rights and livelihood. Court emphasized the need for a thoughtful approach to employment obligations. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 20)
(B) Human Rights - Constitutional provisions cited relate to dignity and rights of individuals - The Appellant argued that information about her husband’s death pertained to human rights. This was noted as relevant by the Court in deciding the appeal's outcome. (Paras 10, 15, 22)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought various documents concerning her late husband who died in duty, claiming non-settlement of dues and withholding of information under RTI. The Respondents provided some but not all necessary documents, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission decided that adequate documents had been supplied, though the Appellant felt some were incomplete; however, the dispute seemed to relate more to employment issues than the RTI Act scope.
Issues: The main issue was whether the RTI exemptions applied and what constituted adequate information provided under the Act when human rights were allegedly involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while RTI is not for grievance redressal, the principle of providing adequate details applies, particularly in contexts involving human rights and transparency. The Appellant still has the option for further legal action.
Result: Appeals disposed off.
ORDER
The captioned appeals emanates from five different RTI applications dated 31.07.2018, 13.08.2018, 19.09.2018, 06.10.2018 and 29.10.2019 whereby the Appellant has sought information pertaining to her husband the late Rajkumar, E/213903A, Havildar (Electrician). She has specifically sought for certified copies of the Court of Inquiry Board report, post mortem report, complete details of his service book, personal file, daily parade state register, night & day duty register, issue arms register, Unit person in/out register etc. through various points. The Respondent PIO has provided available information in Case no. CIC/ASMRF/A/2018/169188 and declined to furnish information on remaining cases citing exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
The foremost contentious point which thus arises is of the maintainability of the present appeal. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 lays that:
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.–
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
The Respondent public authority is enlisted in Second Schedule of the RTI Act and as such, exempt from provisions of this Act. The only exception carved out to the rule is wherein information sought relates to allegations of corruption/human rights violations and approval to disclosure is accorded by this Commission.
Thus, the present RTI request must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, the information sought must relate to allegations of corruption / human rights violations and the same must not be barred under various exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Proceedings during hearing: 21.04.2020
Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.
The Respondent is not present.
Appellant is present through telephonic conference. She earnestly requested the Commission to postpone the present set of Appeals since she is not having any documents/records at the moment.
Decision: Interim
In the given circumstances as discussed above, the Commission deems it appropriate that the instant appeals be re-scheduled for hearing on a later date.
Appeals may be re-scheduled for hearing in the normal course.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: 11.11.2020
A written submission has been received from Appellant vide letter dated 08.11.2020 wherein she referred to Article 19 (1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India. He also referred to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993 pertaining to the definition of “human rights” which means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual and that the information sought by her vide the RTI application pertained to equality and dignity of an individual. She further stated that being the wife of the late Rajkumar, she was entitled to know the cause of his death and disclosure of the same would not cause any harm to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. It was further submitted that if the information sought was denied by the Assam Rifles (HQ) being exempted u/s 24 (1) then the reason for disclosure of part information by the Dy. Commandant, Company Commander, Assam Rifles Training Centre and School vide letter dated 07.09.2018 was not known. Thus, she prayed for disclosure of complete information in all the 5 matters and initiation of penal action against the
