Section 24 of the RTI Act
In the BCAS of July 2011, the Government’s Notification dated 09.06.2011 was reported under which the Central Board of Investigation (CBI) was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act (the Act) by including the CBI in the Second Schedule to the Act.
Above notification was challenged by a PIL before the High Court of Madras on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
According to the petitioner, in the light of the various scams, the country has become rudderless in the war on corruption and at this juncture, the Government instead of becoming more transparent has become reactionary by resorting to Section 24 of the Act by granting blanket exemption to the CBI. The petitioner further contended that respondents had over looked the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act under which information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation cannot be exempted under Section 24 of the Act. Further, Section 24 exempts only intelligence and security agencies and CBI which is an investigating agency cannot be granted a blanket exemption. It was also contended that the plea that investigative data requires confidentiality has been adequately taken care of in Section 8(1) (g) and (h) of the Act. It wass further submitted that Section 24(3) of the Act mandates that every notification issued under Section 24(2) shall be laid before each house of Parliament, and failure to do so renders the exemption null and void. It was the case of the petitioner that the exemption is bound to create chaos as several writ petitions will be filed challenging the orders passed by the Central Information Commission in their decisions against the CBI, since the CIC has no power to set aside the notification.
In reply, Union of India filed the counter affidavit inter alia contending that the exemption to the CBI under Section 24 is not a blanket exemption inasmuch as it is subject to the provisos to Section 24 of the Act. The exemption was granted after the Government received representation from the CBI stating that difficulty was being faced by it in its working and the legal opinion was received that opined that the CBI qualifies as a security and intelligence organisation under Section 24 of the Act.
The judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition runs into 21 printed pages and is very interesting. However, I herewith reproduce only the concluding part of it.
“We find no justifiable reasons to depart from such findings which appear to have been arrived at after considering all material placed before the Government, taken note of by the Committee of Secretaries and other authorities prior to issuance of the impugned Notification. Admittedly, there is no allegation with regard to the decision making process or that there was any arbitrariness in the procedure adopted so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent that Notification has been placed before both Houses of Parliament and would be taken up for consideration in the ensuing Session.
In view of the above, we hold that the impugned Notification is neither ultra vires section 24 of the RTI Act nor violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
In the result the Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
[S. Vijaya lakshmi vs. Union of India & another w.p. 14788 of 2011 & M.A.1 of 2011 dated 09.09.2011.- Reported in RTI R1 (2012) 106-126]
