Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4501

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Lalit Singha – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Commissioner of Customs NS 1, 3 & 5, RTI Cell (Import), Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House – Respondent
CIC/CCUM2/A/2024/635270

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: G. N. Srinivas (Assistant Commissioner of Customs and CPIO)

Information disclosure that impedes active prosecution is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Additionally, an applicant cannot repeatedly file similar RTI applications to re-litigate issues already decided by the Commission, as this constitutes an abuse of the process.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(h) - Disclosure of information pertaining to ongoing prosecution proceedings - Whether information sought by appellant would impede investigation or prosecution - Commission affirmed that disclosure of investigation records, correspondence, and note sheets during the pendency of prosecution constitutes an impediment - RTI application found to be a repetitive request for information already adjudicated in previous proceedings - Repetition of RTI applications on settled issues is against the principles of natural justice. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking access to details of his vigilance file, including correspondence with the Anti-Corruption Bureau and CBI, investigation reports, and internal note sheets related to the sanction of his prosecution. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority denied the request under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, citing pending prosecution before the Special CBI Court. The appellant had previously filed a similar RTI application which was adjudicated by the Commission, where the denial of information was upheld.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the information requested relates directly to ongoing prosecution proceedings. It noted that the disclosure of such documents would impede the prosecution process. Furthermore, the Commission held that the instant application is a repetition of a previously adjudicated matter, and repeated requests on the same subject are not permissible.

Issues: Whether the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, was justified in light of the ongoing prosecution, and whether the appellant’s repeated RTI applications on the same subject matter warrant dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that information concerning sensitive investigation records and prosecution correspondence is protected under Section 8(1)(h) when judicial proceedings are active, as disclosure creates a reasonable presumption of impediment to the trial. Additionally, repetitive RTI applications seeking the same information previously denied by the Commission are an abuse of the RTI process.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and initial rti requests. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. respondent's defense regarding exempt information and non-compliance with service. (Para 6)
3. application of section 8(1)(h) and rejection of repetitive rti requests. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 13.05.2024

CPIO replied on : 06.06.2024

First appeal filed on : 27.06.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 09.07.2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.08.2024

Information sought:

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

“Please provide the following information related to Vigilance file of me i.e. Shri. Lalit Singha.

(1). You are requested to provide the copy of the letter received from Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, Mumbai along with investigation report of Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, Mumbai regarding the sanction of prosecution of Sh. Lalit Singha?

(2). You are requested to provide the copies of all the letters sent by Vigilance Department, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai Customs Zone-III to Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, Mumbai regarding the sanction of prosecution of Sh. Lalit Singha?

(3) Kindly provide the copies of all the correspondence between Vigilance Department, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai Customs Zone-III and Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, Mumbai regarding the sanction of prosecution of Sh. Lalit Singha?

(4) Kindly provide the copies of noting side of the file VIG/GEN-02/2017-18 ACC of Shri. Lalit Singha.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.06.2024 stating as under:

“Based on information provided by concerned sections, JNCH, wherein, the reply for the information sought by the RTI applicant is mentioned as under:-

In this regard, it is informed that after consulting with investigation agency i.e. CBI, it is apparent that providing the information sought by the applicant is barred under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information as sought by the RTI application cannot be provided. Accordingly, the RTI application dated 13.05.2024 filed by you is disposed off.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.07.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Shri G. N. Srinivas, Assistant Commissioner of Customs and CPIO, appeared through video conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.08.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 12.03.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

“1. In this regard, the appellant has filed an CCUM2/R/E/24/00054 dated 13.05.2024 and the same was replied on RTI Application 06.06.2024 by the CPIO. Against the said CPIO's Order, the appellant filed a first Appeal bearing Reg no- CCUM2/A/E/24/00018 on 27.06.2024 which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority on 09.07.2024. Against the said First Appellate Authority's Order, the Appellant filed the present second appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission.

Brief Facts:

2. The Appellant had filed the original RTI application with CPIO seeking the following details:-

"Please provide the following information related to Vigilance file of me i.e. Shri. Lalit Singha.

(1). You are requested to provide the copy of the letter received from Anti-Cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4501

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerLalit Singha – AppellantVersusCPIO, Commissioner of Customs NS 1, 3 & 5, RTI Cell (Import), Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House – RespondentCIC/CCUM2/A/2024/635270

Information disclosure that impedes active prosecution is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Additionally, an applicant cannot repeatedly file similar RTI applications to re-litigate issues already decided by the Commission, as this constitutes an abuse of the process.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Lalit Singha – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Commissioner of Customs NS 1, 3 & 5, RTI Cell (Import), Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House – Respondent
CIC/CCUM2/A/2024/635270