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 investigation.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and 24 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 17A and 19 - Request for certified copies of prosecution sanction file, prior investigation sanction correspondence, and related documents in ongoing criminal case - CPIO and FAA denied information citing exemptions for impeding prosecution, endangering safety of persons, and exemption for intelligence agencies - Commission upheld denial noting that disclosure of internal file notings, opinions, and CBI-related documents during pending trial would hamper investigation, prosecution, and reveal confidential sources, even if investigation completed and charge-sheet filed - Disclosure under RTI cannot circumvent Section 24 exemption or prejudice ongoing proceedings, absent larger public interest - Reference to superior court judgments emphasizing protection of administrative confidentiality, subjective satisfaction under Section 8(1)(h), and balancing rights in corruption trials. (Paras 2, 9, 11-18)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(h) - 'Apprehension' of impediment to prosecution process sufficient for denial - Internal opinions/views in sanction files subject to change based on evolving evidence; premature disclosure disrupts fair trial dynamics, disciplinary proceedings, and investigative discretion - Accused's right to information subordinate to public interest in unhampered prosecution; seek documents from trial court if needed during trial. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
Appellant, accused in ongoing corruption prosecution, sought under RTI complete prosecution sanction file (including notings), prior investigation sanction correspondence from and to investigating agency, and sanction order from public authority. CPIO denied citing Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24; FAA upheld, noting documents' confidential classification, risk to processors' safety, source identification, and ongoing proceedings. Second appeal to Commission argued corruption exception to Section 24, fair trial rights, lack of factual basis for exemptions, and cited prior decisions.

Findings of Court:
No infirmity in CPIO/FAA orders; exemptions squarely apply as case pending trial; no larger public interest or locus established by appellant; decisions cited inapplicable; no Commission intervention warranted.

Issues: Whether prosecution sanction file and related documents held by public authority exempt under Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24 during ongoing trial despite completed investigation; application of corruption/human rights proviso to Section 24; balancing RTI rights against prosecution integrity.

Ratio Decidendi: Information linked to pending corruption prosecution, including internal sanction processing and agency inputs, exempt to prevent impeding trial, endangering persons, revealing sources; Section 24 not circumventable via public authority; superior courts affirm non-disclosure absent overriding public interest, protecting investigative/prosecutorial process.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti seeks sanction files; denied under sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant argues against exemptions, cites precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondent defends denial citing cbi confidentiality. (Para 8)
4. commission notes ongoing case exemptions apply. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. madras hc: disclosure hampers prosecution opinions. (Para 13)
6. delhi hc: seek documents from trial court. (Para 14)
7. no public interest; appeal dismissed upholding denial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

“Applicant is accused in criminal case no. 2/2017 which is under progress at Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad. Sanction to prosecute the applicant in court of Iaw was granted by an official in Ministry of Railway in response to CBI/ACB Ghaziabad registered case no: RC1202016A0010 against applicant. It may please be noted that investigation in the said case is completed as final charge sheet under section 173(2) CRPC has been filed by CBI in court of law on21/10/2016.

In connection with above under RTI Act. Kindly provide following documents (duly attested by gazzeted officer)

i) Complete copy of file (including noting & correspondence) in which sanction to prosecute applicant under Section 19 of PC Act was processed and granted to CBI.

ii) Copy of correspondence/letter as per which prior sanction was sought by CBI under section 17A of PC Act to investigate role of applicant in FIR no. RC1202O16A0010 dated 23/8/2016.

iii) Copy of Sanction granted by Ministry of Railways to CBI under Section 17A of PC Act in response to correspondence/letter mentioned in para (ii) above.

While disposing RTI request PIO is requested to kindly go through the following CIC order

a) The contents of CIC order no. CIC/SG/A/2012/371/17851 in the case titled Shri R. Govindarajan vs. UCO Bank in which CIC directed respondents to provide copy of noting of file in which sanction to prosecute the appellant was processed even when investigation was continuing. The case of applicant stands on better footing as investigation stands completed on 21/10/2016.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.05.2024 stating as under:

“As per Sec. 24 of RTI Act, CBI is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Further, the case is also under prosecution before CBI Court. The requested information therefore can’t be given under section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2024. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 09.07.2024, wherein following observations were given:

“1. & 2. The CBI/ACB/GZB, had classified their report as 'Confidential Document' and has advised that no reference of It may be made in any correspondence with the accused officers. Therefore, since the documents sought by the applicant includes documents received from CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad, the said information cannot be given to the appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005. The requisite information/documents are exempted under Section 24 of RTI Act 2005, as some of these information/documents pertain to the CBI, which are sensitive in nature.

Further, it may also reveal the identity of those entrusted in charge of processing the matter and thus, the life or physical safety of the person concerned would be endangered. Apart from the above, source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes would be identified. Therefore, the sought information cannot be given to the appellant under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005.

3. Copy of Sanction order for prosecution (against Dr. Pankaj Kumar) cannot be given to the appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005 as the information mentioned in the said sanction order would impede the process of prosecution of offender.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2397

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONSwagat Das, INFORMATION COMMISSIONERPankaj Kumar – AppellantVersusCPIO, Railway Board – RespondentCIC/MORLY/A/2024/122350

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 investigation.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Swagat Das, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Pankaj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Railway Board – Respondent
CIC/MORLY/A/2024/122350