Kaulesh Kumari Vs. CPIO & Asst. Director General Unique Identification Authority of India Decision no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2017/175862/00859 File no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2017/175862 dated 10.06.2019
The Applicant sought the following information related to one Dr. Prem Narayan:
1. Date on which the letter dated 13/08/2017 sent by Dr. Prem Narayan was received by Director General.
2. Copy of the order passed regarding the said letter.
During the hearing CIC observed that the Applicant in her First Appeal had challenged the applicability of Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without following the procedure as envisaged u/s 11(3) of the RTI Act. She is the wife of Dr Prem Narayan and the complaint was lodged against some third party and gave the decision that The FAA erred in not disposing of the first appeal on merits when the appellant had specifically raised objection relating to Sec 11(3) procedure not being followed. The FAA is advised to be careful in future.
Agnivesh Gupta Vs CPIO, Delhi Police, Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/183358 dated 10.6.2019
The Applicant filed an RTI application to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o DCP, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi seeking complete extract of complaints registered in the DD Register on 24th July,2015 in Vasant Kunj Police Station, North. CPIO denied disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act on the ground of information being held under a fiduciary relationship and no larger public interest being served by the disclosure of information. The Commission, directed the CPIO to provide the extracts of the complaints including the complaint filed by the appellant with PS Vasant Vihar on 24.07.2017 to the Applicant.
Sanjeev Kumar Vs CPIO, M/o External Affairs, (Consulate General of India, Guangzhou, China), Second Appeal No. CIC/CGIGC/A/2017/184461 dated 6.6.2019
The Applicant sought the following information from the CPIO Embassy of India, Italy, Rome :
“…logbook of Flag Car, Page 2 of 5 documentary proof of receipts of payment for playing golf etc, including, inter-alia (i) photo copies of pages of the Logbook of Flag Car of Consular General of India, Guangzhou for visit of Consular General to play Golf at golf course since his joining till date, in the format given, and (ii) photo copies of payment vouchers and related documents viz., sanction order, invoices, quotation obtained, note sheet and communication with the caterers for hosting reception at India House on national holidays (15th August, 2013, 26th January, 2014, 15th August, 2014 and 26th January, 2015), in the table given.”
CPIO withheld some information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. After hearing both the parties, CIC directed the CPIO to provide the following:
- the photo copies of pages of the Logbook of Flag Car of Consular General of India, Guangzhou for the month of October, 2016 to December, 2016, after severing information which is not disclosable under the RTI Act, and
- information pertaining to payments made for the visit of the Consular General to various golf courses
Shri Narayan Lal Atal Vs. PIO/ Asstt. Director of Education-(West-A), Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2017/145170 dated 21.5.2019
The Applicant sought information related to Progress reports, Mark-sheets (for Class V & VI) and Enrolment Form in respect of (XXXXXX – name omitted by order of Commission to protect privacy of a Minor), studying in N.C. Jindal Public School, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The PIO denied the information on the ground that the information is not accessible under Rule 180 of DSEAR-1973 from the unaided Private School in question. The Applicant filed a first appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the reply of the PIO. The Applicant approached the CIC.
During the hearing the CPIO submitted that the Dept. of Education is not the custodian of records of individual performance of a student and cited his inability to access the same under Rule 180 of DSEAR 1973. CIC held that The Commission cannot compel disclosure of information in the present case while the record sought is held by a private body and the same is not accessible to the public authority.
Gurdyal Kumar Vs. PIO/ AVATO Ward No.-28, Department of Trade & Taxes, Second Appeal No. CIC/DPTAT/A/2017/142695 dated 21.5.2019
The RTI applicant sought the following information from the CPIO:
1. Details of the actual purchases, invoice wise reflected by above purchasing firm in its quarterly returns in form 2-A. 2. Certified copies of the purchase lists in form 2A submitted by M/S Uma Sales Corporation Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. Name of the person to whom form C was issued from manual record of your office during that year (2010-11)
CPIO denied information on the ground of it being a third party information. The Applicant filed a First Appeal. On not receiving any reply from the First Appellate Authority, the Applicant approached CIC. During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that the Applicant sought third party data of self tax assessment under the GST.
CIC held: The Commission finds the queries of Appellant seek to elicit information are expressly prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. No cause of larger public interest warranting disclosure has been pleaded. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Naresh Kumar Arora Vs. CPIO/SBI, Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/175037 dated 20.5.2019
The RTI applicant sought the following information from the CPIO/SBI:
(i) Purpose of Ms. Amita Raturi Chief Manager Pauri Branch to visit at Sabdarkhal branch on 30.05.2017. (ii) Copy of the approved note permitting Ms. Amita Raturi Chief Manager Pauri Branch to go to Sabdarkhal branch on 30.05.2017
CPIO invoked Section 8(1) (j). Applicant filed a second appeal before the CIC. During the hearing the Applicant informed the CIC that he has been harassed by the senior officers for which he has been seeking redressal in appropriate forum and that, the fact is Ms Anita Raturi, Chief Manager, Pauri Branch had visited Sabdarkhal on 30.5.2017 and therefore there may be public interest if the information is made available about the purpose and authority under which she had visited the Branch.
On hearing both the parties, the CIC held that the Chief Manager who is an officer of a public authority might have gone on official trip and in official capacity. In view of this, there may be public interest if the information sought by the appellant is revealed.
Amir Khan Suri Vs. CPIO, Airports Authority of India, File No : CIC/AAOIN/A/2017/171413/SD dated 20.05.2019
The Applicant sought information through 8 points in terms of copies of documents related to appointment of Najma Khan as Supervisor (Official Language) at Devi Ahilabai Holkar Airport, Indore.
Subsequently, he filed a second appeal before the CIC on the ground that the desired information on paras 3,4,5,6 and 8 of his RTI Application has not been provided to him. CIC held that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is appropriate as the Applicant sought for education certificates; family and dependent details as well as sanction order for purchase of flat of a third party and has also not urged any larger public interest in the disclosure of this information.
Amandeep Singh Sood Vs. CPIO, O/o General Manager, Civil Services Officers Institute, File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2017/170275/SD dated 20.5.2019
The Applicant sought information regarding “in whose name booking was made for the wedding reception of Avneet Kaur and Amandeep Singh held on 04.12.2016 at 7:30 pm and the total amount paid for the same with the mode of payment”.
The CPIO informed that the party on 04.12.2016 was booked at their Vinay Marg facility by Amarjit Singh and total amount paid was Rs.2,92,804/- approx. Applicant filed a second appeal to the CIC on the ground that the desired information has not been provided to him. CIC opined that the information provided by the CPIO appears to be pertaining to a third party and should have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It grave exception to the conduct of the CPIO in providing the information without seeking the consent of the third party under Section 11 of RTI Act. CIC also warned the CPIO to exercise due caution in future while disclosing information with respect to third parties under RTI Act, particularly when no larger public interest has been argued by the Appellant.
Bandhagit Nadaf Vs. CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust, File No : CIC/MPOTR/A/2017/109149/C/SD dated 20.5.2019
The Applicant sought information in terms of copies of testimonials/educational & experience certificates; offer letter/appointment letter; acceptance/joining letter etc. of Premanand Dhamuskar and Shaikh Anis Abdul Basit for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager Grade – I, based at Mormugao Port Trust.
The CPIO invoked Section 8(1) (j). Dissatisfied with CPIO’s reply, the Applicant filed a complaint before the CIC. CIC held that the CPIO has replied as per the provisions of RTI Act and there is no scope for intervention in the decision of the CPIO.
Ms. Neerja Vs. PIO, Director of Education, GNCTD, Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2017/156520 dated 16.5.2019
The Applicant sought information regarding the status of her letter dated 03.08.2015 regarding her candidature for post of guest teacher in Pol. Science. CPIO/Directorate of Education replied that appointment for guest teachers are made by concerned districts after ascertaining their merit.
Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant approached the Commission. Her grievance before the Commission was that her name was not sent for consideration for engagement as guest teacher/ Political Science. In this context, she had sought to know if her candidature for engagement was considered or not.
The Commission found that an evasive reply was furnished, the Applicant being a candidate for a public appointment is entitled to seek details of her candidature and directed the CPIO to furnish a revised reply clearly mentioning if the name of the Applicant was received by Directorate and reasons for not forwarding her name to the concerned District.
Priya Ranjan Srivastva Vs. Central Public Information Officer/SFIO, Decision no. CIC/SFIVO/C/2017/603029/00669 File no.: CIC/SFIVO/C/2017/603029 dated 16.05.2019
The Applicant sought the following information from PIO/SFIO:
HDFC Bank reported a fraud of Rs. 1.87 Crore to RBI vide FMR report no. HDFC1601-0070 dated 11-Mar-2016. As per RBI Master circular on Fraud Reporting, the same should be reported to SFIO, if the amount exceeds Rs. 10 Million……. (i)Copy of FMR reported to SFIO by HDFC BANK, ii. Has SFIO sought any clarification on the report so far, if so, provide a copy of that. iii. Any response received from HDFC BANK, if so, provide a copy of the same.
The CPIO invoked Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, in his reply and during the hearing before the CIC further submitted as under:
(i)Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is an investigating agency established under Section 211 of the Companies Act 2013 and investigates cases assigned to it by the Central Government i.e Ministry of Corporate Affairs under Section 212 of the Companies Act 2013. It does not have suo motu power to initiate investigation.
(ii)The RTI application had an enclosure of the FMR which meant that the applicant was already in possession of its copy.
(iii)Exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was claimed in respect of point no. 2 and 3. FMR-1 reporting relates to fraud and inter alia contains sensitive and confidential information, the disclosure of which can hinder the process of investigation undertaken by the concerned bank/police authorities/ CBI.
(iv)Recently through e-mail dated 24th Sep 2018, the HDFC bank has categorically stated “not to disclose/part with the copy of FMR report to the applicants.”
The CIC observed that the HDFC bank claimed that disclosure of FMR would adversely affect the competitive position of HDFC bank. Moreover, the information and disclosure sought for has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Instead it would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the bank as well as the customer and gave no directions for disclosure to the CPIO.
Ajit Kumar Roy Vs. CPIO, Inland Waterways Authority of India, File No: CIC/IWAOI/A/2017/167789/SD, dated 16.05.2019
The Applicant sought copies of promotion orders and DPC proceedings iro the UDC promoted as Assistants based on seniority list dated 02.08.2016 and copy of letter vide which Usha Venugopal refused promotion of Assistant and communications sent in this regard by Director, Kochi and Head Office. The CPIO denied most of the information under Section 8(1) (j), however, provided the copy of the information related to Usha Venugopal. Dissatisfied, the Applicant approached the CIC.
CIC observed that the information sought pertained to DPC proceedings of third party employees and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 is relevant. But, the CPIO has committed a gross error by providing the communication related to refusal of promotion of the third party, Usha Venugopal without seeking consent of the said third party.
Manikant Vs. CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/605324/SD dated 16.05.2019
The Applicant sought following information related to Civil Services Examination held on June 18, 2017 (both paper 1 (GS) & Paper II (GS) from CPIO/UPSC:
1. Copy of his OMR Answer Sheet.
2. Status of cut off marks for all categories.
3. Answer key along with detailed solution.
On not getting the desired reply, the Applicant approached the CIC.
During the hearing the CPIO submitted that at the time of filing of RTI Application, information sought was not available because the process of relevant examination was not over and the Applicant was informed accordingly. The Applicant was absent during the hearing. CIC upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Shri Neeraj Sharma Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/167309 dated 15.5.2019
The RTI Applicant requested for the following information from RBI:
(i) When Finance Ministry became aware on the case of 32 lakhs debit cards compromised.
(ii) Is any internal enquiry done on this case, Please provide the enquiry report on Case of 32 lakh debit cards compromised.
(iii) Please provide copy of all letters/Memo/Emails sent or received by finance ministry on Case of 32 lakh debit card compromised.
(iv) How many FIRs registered on the Case of 32 lakh debit cards compromised and provide all FIR Numbers.
(v) Which investigating agency investigated this Case of 32 lakh debit card compromised please provide the name of the agency and investigation officer names.
(vi) Is Investigation completed on the above case.
(vii) Is any Commission formed by the govt. to investigate the case. If yes, please provide the commission members details. And copy of commission report.
(viii) Please provide total loss in Rupees due to 32 lakh debit card compromised with their bank details.
(ix) Please provide loss of amount by Bank.
(x) Please provide loss of amount by Bank’s Customers.
(xi) Please provide the compensation details given to customers by Bank by Govt. of India.
The CPIO/RBI denied query nos. 2 and 3 under Section 8(1) (a) and 8(1) (d) and for query nos. 4 and 5 replied that information is not available and for query no.1 replied that it is available on RBI’s web portal.
Before CIC, the Applicant relied on the judgment of SC in Reserve Bank of India & Ors. v Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors dated 16.12.2015. He also submitted that the RBI has prioritized economic interest over the larger public interest.
RBI submitted that forensic investigation was conducted by ATM service provider M/s Hitachi and a copy of the report was received by RBI. The report is confidential in nature and contains information about how the hackers entered the infrastructure, the patterns that were hacked, the future measures that may be formulated for security purposes. The disclosure of the report would leak crucial information risking possibility of misuse of such information by hackers for illegal activities. The security strategies of the RBI and other bank would be compromised upon its disclosure. Therefore, the information was denied under section 8 (1) (a) and (d) of the RTI Act. It also stated that the disclosure of the names of the banks wherein the cards were misused would cause panic within the customers and the general public.
CIC took the view that it is only in public interest that the security strategies and measures are safeguarded by the RBI. The risk involved in disclosure of the report overrides the requirement of its availability in the public domain. The case relied upon by the appellant is distinguishable as the exemption is claimed u/s8(1) (a) & (d) and not u/s 8(1)(e) and upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Satpal Vs. CPIO, Air India, File No : CIC/AIRIN/A/2018/101751/SD dated 15.5.2019
The Applicant sought to know the caste and state of OBC candidates recruited to the post of Senior Training Pilot/Training Pilot post between 2015-2017 whose name was provided vide letter no. HPD01/RTI dated 22.02.2017. CPIO denied information pertaining to caste under Section 8(1) (j). Dissatisfied the Applicant filed a seconde appeal before the CIC. During the hearing the representative of the Applicant submitted that that it has been gathered by them that Air India Ltd. did not conduct any caste verification at the time of recruitment and there are certain candidates who have submitted fake caste certificates which is why the information sought is crucial. CIC held that information pertaining to caste is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) and the ground of disclosure in public interest is rejected for lack of any material on record to ascribe larger public interest in such disclosure.
Ashwin Shukla Vs. CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/604854/SD dated 15.05.2019
The Applicant sought copy of documents related with first stage advice given to CVC with respect to work of supply of material, installation and commissioning of signaling equipment in connection with shunt back facility at Bharatpur station of Kota Division after completing a technical examination by CTE’s organization in West Central Railway’s Sr. DSTE/Wks/Kota’s CA No. KTT/S&T/Works/2006/4 dated 31.07.2007. CPIO denied the Information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the Applicant filed second appeal before the CIC.
During the hearing the CPIO was present but the Applicant was absent. CPIO submitted that as information sought pertained to first stage advise issued by CVC and related documents with respect to two officers of Indian Railways. CIC upheld the reply . CIC held that though the Applicant in the records has has urged larger public interest in the disclosure of the information by stating that it pertains to large scale misconduct committed by the averred officials and that CVC has been misled by vigilance department of the concerned Railway Zone, thus shielding the corrupt officials. However, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case as well as lack of any material on record to substantiate the allegations leveled in the Second Appeal it is not in a position to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information. Submission of the CPIO is upheld.
Gurdeep Singh Vs. CPIO Central Vigilance Commission, File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/170016/SD dated 14.5.2019
The Applicant sought information through 6 points regarding disciplinary action taken against him by Punjab and Sind Bank vide in terms of copies of application received from CVO of the bank seeking various stages of advice. CPIO denied the Information on paras (i), (iii) and (v) of the RTI Application under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the Applicant filed second appeal before the CIC. Commission observed that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is unwarranted. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the documents pertain to action taken only against the Appellant, in the process, if the action is based on documents of the bank as well as of the accounts in respect of which disciplinary action was initiated against the Appellant; the same ought to be provided to him. Further, CPIO has also not been able to substantiate as to what personal information of third parties is contained in the applications and its enclosures.
S Malleswara Rao Vs. CPIO, Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Second Appeal No. CIC/PAROI/A/2017/172581 dated 14.05.2019
The RTI Applicant interalia, sought the following information from PIO, Rajya Sabha:
(i) total number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who had signed and moved the impeachment motion along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise, and (ii) total number of members of the Parliament Page 2 of 8 (Rajya Sabha) who withdrew support to the motion later along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations, State-wise.
Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Applicant filed a second appeal before the CIC on the grounds of incomplete information, denial of information under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. He contended that the matter has already been published by the newspapers and is thus available to the public. CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the other hand submitted that the contents of motion and the signatories to the Notice of Motion, names of members who withdrew support to the motion later, etc. were never made public. All the documents are under the custody of Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. Such documents relating to or connected with the proceedings of the House are privileged documents and exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
CIC held that information relating to impeachment motion papers being part of proceedings in parliament, its disclosure would cause breach of privilege of parliament, hence, is exempted under Section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri Anuj Kumar Sharma Vs. PIO, DDE (Zone-II), Directorate of Education, Shakarpur, Delhi, Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2017/160264 dated 14.05.2019
The RTI Applicant interalia, sought the following information from PIO, DDE (Zone-II), Directorate of Education in respect of Ryan International School:
1. In Ryan International School, Mayur Vihar Ph-III, Branch, has the service book of every employee of the school been prepared and updated in respect of leave account, annual increment entries (signed by employees), financial benefits entries and other relevant entries.
2. In Ryan International School, Mayur Vihar Ph-III, Branch, provide list of names of presently working employees whose service book is maintained and updated.
3. In Ryan International School, Mayur Vihar Ph-III, Branch, provide list of names of presently working employees whose service book is maintained and not updated.
4. In Ryan International School, Mayur Vihar Ph-III, Branch, has the service book (photo copy) been provided to all the presently working employees to the school as per the guidelines of directorate of education, and other related information.
PIO informed the Applicant that his Application has been sent to the Ryan International School for the information and the reply is being awaited, which shall be sent to him as and when it is received. Aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed a first Appeal. The First Appellate Officer directed the PIO to provide the revised reply to the Applicant within a week. PIO in its revised reply forwarded the response of the School, denying disclosure of information on the ground that the School does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. The Applicant filed a second appeal before the CIC. In its written submission the PIO cited denial from disclosure of information, on the ground that the school being a private unaided school does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The CIC held that whether the school is a public authority or not is not the determinant factor in this case. The queries raised by the Applicant relate to information which should be available with the respondent, as a monitoring and regulatory agency of the State. The Public Authority’s responsibility does not end with simply stating the school’s stance. Most of the information sought should be accessible to the Public Authority under the DSEAR (Delhi School Education and Rules) Act,1973. The Directorate of Education through its Director is empowered with definite inherent powers to ensure that the Directorate possesses significant amount of information about the schools in the form of the mandatory documents and returns submitted by the school. The PIO is directed to exercise the inherent powers vested by the DSEAR Act, obtain the information from the Ryan International School and provide it to the Applicant.
Mr. Rustom Farhad Ginwala Vs. CPIO, Mumbai Port Trust, File No:CIC/MPTRS/A/2017/180687/SD dated 03.05.2019
The RTI Applicant vide his RTI Application dated 7.6.2017 sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to the leasehold property R.R 1236 at A.R. Estate and building that stands on it. The CPIO invoked Sections 8(1) (j) & (e) of RTI Act as the property had been let out on joint tenancy to F.N. Ginwalla and Smt. Zenobia R. Poonawala and when he had sought their consent under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, F.N. Ginwalla gave ‘no objection’ but Smt. Zenobia R. Poonawala denied consent. CIC opined that CPIO has categorically maintained that that as per their records the property is leased out on joint ownership of F.N. Ginwalla and Smt. Zenobia R. Poonawala and the Commission has to consider the objection of
Smt. Zenobia R. Poonawala. The information sought pertains to the privacy of the third party and the Applicant has not argued any public interest in disclosure of information, hence denial of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act is upheld.
G B Goyal Vs. CPIO/CBI, File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/157735/SD dated 2.05.2019
The RTI Applicant vide his RTI Application dated 23.5.2017 sought copy of certain letter(s) sent in response to his earlier RTI Application dated 22.07.2010. CPIO/CBI replied that “…since information sought in the RTI Application is 7 years old, same is outside the purview of RTI Act”. During the hearing the Applicant submitted that “he wanted copy of documents sent by him and the reply of CBI sent to him in 2010″. CBI on the other hand submitted that it has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005, the RTI Act is not applicable to it except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. Relying on Hon’ble Madras High Court’s judgment in the matter of PIO, High Court Madras Vs. B. Bharathi (W.P No.26781 of 2013), CIC held that the Applicant cannot use the RTI Act for seeking his own documents after misplacing them.
Rattan Deep Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2017/606609/SD dated 1.5.2019
The Applicant sought copy of CWP No.4191 of 1984 and a copy of SLP filed against the decision dated 17.01.1985 of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana alongwith copies of their Annexure and replies filed by the Staff Selection Commission. During the hearing, the Applicant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO intimating that no recorded information is available with their office at present. He argued that the CPIO provided false information and action be taken against the CPIO for non-compliance with Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. CIC observed that the contention of the Applicant that CPIO failed to comply with Section 19(5) of RTI Act is fallacious as the CPIO has not denied the information sought. Information not being available in records does not have the same connotation as that of information being denied under the exemption clauses of RTI Act.
N Parashar Vs. CPIO/CBI, File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180556/SD dated 26.04.2019
The RTI Applicant sought information in the context of CBI enquiry conducted into irregular appointment of staff by Leprosy Prevention Unit of Health Department. CPIO/CBI denied information under Section 24 of RTI Act.
During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that, since, the case was registered upon the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, the subject matter pertains to allegations of corruption.
CPIO/CBI, on the other hand submitted submitted that, the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act is applicable only in cases which involves allegations of corruption and human rights violation against CBI’s own employees and not with respect to the routine cases inquired by CBI. Also, since, the case is still under process, the information cannot be provided.
The CIC rejected CPIO’s contention that CBI is required to provide information only on those allegations of corruption and human rights violation which pertain to its own employees as, it was of the view that RTI Act does not provide for such an exception. CIC also held that once it is established that the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation, information cannot be exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act and directed disclosure of information.