The Right to Information Act's exemption for intelligence agencies applies unless corruption or human rights violations are specifically alleged.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exts. P6 and P8 orders issued by the Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority of the Intelligence Bureau, whereby disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner regarding the reasons for his non-appointment to the post of Immigration Assistant was declined by invoking Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 .

2. The petitioner contends that he is an ex-serviceman who rendered more than 25 years of unblemished service in the Indian Army. He applied for the post of Immigration Assistant pursuant to the notification issued by the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs and was called for an interview, which he successfully attended, and thereafter underwent character and antecedent verification. Despite being otherwise eligible and meritorious, the petitioner was not appointed, while several juniors with lesser credentials were selected. According to the petitioner, the denial of appointment was solely based on an adverse Intelligence Bureau report prepared after obtaining a statement from his estranged wife, who was admittedly prejudiced against him due to adverse judicial findings rendered against her.

3. The petitioner submits that the marital dispute relied upon in the verification process stood conclusively adjudicated by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which dissolved the marriage on findings of adultery against the petitioner’s wife and awarded compensation in favour of the petitioner. The said findings were affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore reliance on the version of the petitioner’s ex-wife, ignoring binding judicial determinations, is arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides.

4. The petitioner further submitted Ext. P5 representation dated

11.01.2023 seeking to be informed of the reasons for his non-selection. The Joint Deputy Director and Central Public Information Officer, by Ext. P6 reply dated 25.01.2023, informed the petitioner that it was not necessary to provide the information sought in view of Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected by Ext. P8 order dated

02.03.2023.

5. The petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court, by order dated 15.04.2024, considering the request of the applicant to file Second Appeal before the Central Public Information Commissioner, held that the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the Appellate Authority in considering the request of the petitioner for information. Based on the aforesaid direction, the applicant has preferred Ext. P10 application dated 19.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent again rejected the request by Ext. P11 order dated 06.06.2024, which was followed by Ext.

P13 appellate order dated 06.06.2024, reiterating the very same reasons.

6. Thereafter, this Court, by Ext. P14 order dated 27.06.2024, passed the following directions:

“I find from Ext. P13 that the contention of the petitioner with regard to exclusion of all exemption provided in the first proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act is not addressed by the Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner may file an appeal against Ext. P13 highlighting the above contention within a period of 30 days and if such appeal is received, the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, who is impleaded suo motu as the additional 3rd respondent, is directed to consider the said appeal within a further period of two months after adverting to all the contentions of the petitioner.”

7. Pursuant to