PART A | DECISION OF HIGH COURT
Cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question
|
Case name:
|
Amit Kumar Shrivastava vs. Central Information
Commission, New Delhi
|
|
Citation:
|
Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 3701/2018
|
|
Court:
|
The High Court of Delhi
|
|
Bench:
|
Justice Jayant Nath
|
|
Decided on:
|
5th February, 2021
|
|
Relevant Act / Sections:
|
Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005
|
Brief facts and procedural history:
- The petitioner filed an RTI application on 5th September, 2016 under Rule 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the RTI Act’) seeking disclosure of point-wise information which was mentioned at serial Nos. 5(i) to 5(xxv) of the said application.
- The CPIO did not provide correct information in respect of point 5(i) of the RTI application. The CPIO hid the cases registered under IPC / PC Act. Information was not disclosed u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
- The petitioner filed a first appeal on 10th October, 2016 before the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal of the petitioner in the defined period. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Second Appellate Authority CIC. It is the grievance of the petitioner that during the hearing the respondent believed the verbal submissions of the CPIO instead of the written submissions of the petitioner and allowed them to sustain their stand for non-disclosure of the information in respect of all the points by claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Court’s observation and judgment
The Court was of the view that the facts, including details regarding the grave allegations against the petitioner and the pending criminal and departmental proceedings against him, were not disclosed. However, the CIC dismissed his appeal holding that the proceedings initiated by the CBI are pending and exemption can be claimed u/s 8 of the RTI Act that lays down certain conditions when exemptions are allowed.
Section 8(1)(h) of the Act provides that information which ‘would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders’ need not be disclosed to citizens. On examination, the High Court observed that what follows from the legal position is that where a public authority takes recourse to this section to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. The word ‘impede’ would mean anything that would hamper or interfere with the investigation or prosecution of the offender.
Further, the word ‘investigation’ used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be construed rather broadly and include all inquiries, verification of records and assessments. ‘In all such cases, the inquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about the presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation / inquiry report from the investigating / inquiry officer’, said the Single Bench.
Since the CIC in its order made no attempt whatsoever to show how giving the information sought would hamper the investigation and the on-going disciplinary proceedings, the Court decided to quash its order. The Court also remanded the matter back to the CIC for consideration afresh in terms of the legal position held by the High Court in the present matter.
Justice Jayant Nath also referred to the case of Union of India vs. Manjit Singh Bali (2018) where the High Court of Delhi had held that the exclusion u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act (information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders) has to be read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Such denial must be reasonable and in the interest of public order1.
PART B | DECISION OF SIC
Private medical colleges within RTI Act’s purview: Rajasthan SIC
The private medical colleges in Rajasthan have been brought within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, following an order of the State Information Commission which has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the Principal of Geetanjali Medical College in Udaipur for flouting the transparency law and refusing to provide information.
Allowing an appeal against the college, the Information Commission held in its recent order that the State Government had allotted land to the institution at concessional rates and the college was established under a law passed by the State Legislature.
‘Based on these facts, the college falls within the purview of the RTI Act. The college is governed by the rules and regulations framed by the State government’, said Information Commissioner Narayan Bareth.
He imposed the fine on the Principal for refusing to provide information sought by an applicant2.
PART C IINFORMATION ON AND AROUND
- Vaishno Devi temple got 1,800 kg. of gold in 20 years
The Vaishno Devi Temple in Jammu received over 1,800 kg. of gold and over 4,700 kg. of silver, besides Rs. 2,000 crores in cash, in the past 20 years (2000-2020) as donation3.
- Supreme Court refuses to disclose Justice Patnaik’s probe report on ‘Larger Conspiracy’ against judiciary under RTI
The Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court has refused to disclose the details of a report submitted by the former Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik, on the probe into the ‘larger conspiracy’ behind the sexual harassment allegations levelled against the then Chief Justice of India, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi4.
- Who writes PM Modi’s speeches?
‘Depending upon the nature of event, various individuals, officials, departments, entities, organisations, etc., provide inputs for the PM’s speech and the speech is given final shape by the PM himself,’ the PMO said in its reply to an RTI query5.
- SBI refuses data under RTI on interest waiver claims it received
In October, 2020 the Government had appointed SBI as the nodal agency and said it will receive funds for settlement of such (interest waiver) claims. Other lenders were told to submit their claims by 15th December to India’s largest lender. The State Bank of India, in charge of collating and settling compound interest waiver reimbursement claims by lenders for the last round of the interest waiver scheme during the moratorium, has declined to provide information on the quantum of claims it received6.
- Centre paid Rs. 4.10 crores as commission to SBI for sale of electoral bonds
The Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, in its reply dated 19th March, 2021 to an RTI application stated that an amount of over Rs. 4.35 crores (Rs. 4,35,39,140.86), inclusive of GST, has been charged to the Government as commission consequent to the sale of electoral bonds in 15 phases.
An aggregated amount of Rs. 4.10 crores (Rs. 4,10,16,764.60) has been paid by the Government as commission, consequent to the sale of electoral bonds in 13 phases. Commission for the 14th and 15th phases of electoral bond issuance has not been paid till date7.
