2010 (1) TMI 987 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the CPIO rendered himself liable to a penalty under Section 20 for denying information.
2. Whether the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act applies in a case where the investigation is completed and closed.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant, Shri Reddy, sought information from the CPIO, CBI, regarding a specific case file. The CPIO initially stated that the file was not traceable, but later, upon appeal, claimed that the information was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The appellant alleged that the denial was based on false grounds and raised concerns about potential corruption. The CPIO explained that the file was found, but the information was denied due to exemption under Section 8(1)(e). The matter was referred to the Director, CBI, to investigate if there was any mala fide intent in denying the information.

Issue 2:
Regarding the application of Section 8(1)(e), the judgment referred to various legal precedents to define fiduciary relationships. It highlighted that the CBI cannot be considered a fiduciary concerning individuals under investigation. The judgment emphasized that the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) does not cover investigations of corruption complaints. Therefore, the decision of the Appellate Authority to deny the information under this section was set aside, and the CPIO was directed to provide the requested information to the appellant within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of penalty imposition on the CPIO and the application of the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) in cases where investigations are completed. The decision favored the appellant, directing the CPIO to provide the requested information, emphasizing the inapplicability of fiduciary relationships in this context.