2010 (1) TMI 644 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to information - this court is not inclined to go into the efficacy of exemption given to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption from the purview of the RTI Act - But, as rightly observed by the Commission, if some organisations operate in different spheres such as intelligence and security, in those areas, exemption can be valid - But when the very same organisation dealt with corruption cases of public servants, then exemption u/s 24(4) of the RTI Act cannot be taken advantage of, since the proviso to Section 24(4) clearly says that information pertaining to the allegations of corrupt and human rights violations shall not be excluded under the sub-section - The information sought for by the first respondent are wholly statistical information regarding the number of cases filed, their success rate and the post conviction or post trial action taken against such officers - These information are vital in a transparency Government as public are entitled to know the officers who are facing charge of corruption as well as conviction or acquittal obtained by them as well as the result of departmental action initiated by the Government - Thus, the petitioner are bound to disclose the information sought for by the respondent - Reliance placed upon the exemption provision has no relevance to the information sought for by the respondent.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the orders of the State Information Commission directing the petitioner to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
2. Exemption of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) from the purview of the RTI Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act regarding exemptions for intelligence and security organizations.
4. Public interest and transparency in cases of corruption involving public servants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Orders of the State Information Commission:
The petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, filed two writ petitions challenging the orders of the State Information Commission. The first writ petition challenged the order dated 16-10-2009, which directed the petitioner to furnish information free of cost. The second writ petition challenged the order dated 24-9-2009, directing the petitioner to provide the information within two weeks. The court noted that both writ petitions raised identical contentions and were therefore grouped together for a common hearing.

2. Exemption of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption from the Purview of the RTI Act:
The petitioner argued that by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 158, P&AR(N) Department, dated 26-8-2008, the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption were exempted from the RTI Act. This exemption was claimed under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which allows the State Government to exempt intelligence and security organizations from the Act's purview. The petitioner contended that this exemption justified their refusal to provide the requested information.

3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act:
The court examined Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which states that the Act does not apply to intelligence and security organizations established by the State Government, with a proviso that information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. The court referred to a previous division bench ruling in P. Pugalenthi v. State of Tamil Nadu, which upheld the validity of the G.O. exempting the DVAC. The division bench had clarified that the term "intelligence and security organization" should be read in the plural as "organizations," indicating that the exemption could apply to either intelligence or security organizations.

4. Public Interest and Transparency in Cases of Corruption:
The court emphasized the importance of transparency and public interest, particularly in cases involving corruption by public servants. It noted that the information sought by the first respondent was statistical and related to the number of cases filed, success rates, and actions taken post-conviction. The court held that such information is vital for maintaining a transparent government and that the public has a right to know about officers facing corruption charges and the outcomes of such cases. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, which highlighted the need for transparency regarding the assets of public servants, and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, which underscored the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law in corruption cases.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that notwithstanding the exemption obtained by the petitioner organization, information related to allegations of corruption could not be excluded from public access under the RTI Act. It dismissed both writ petitions and directed the petitioner to furnish the requested information to the first respondent within two weeks. Failure to comply would result in further action by the Information Commission under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. The court emphasized that the exemption provision could not be used to withhold information related to corruption allegations.