2011 (4) TMI 1088 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ appeal RTI - first respondent sought for the particulars relating to the number of investigations completed and the number of persons convicted for the years from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 with the details as to the names of such convicted persons, the post held by them when the act of corruption was done, the charges framed and the recommendations given to the Vigilance Commissioner after investigation - State Information Commission directed the appellant-public authority to furnish the information to the first respondent - orders were questioned by the Superintendent of Police. Central Range Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Writ Petition basically on the grounds that the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act shall not apply to that Department, the Government Order dated 26-8-2008 was already tested and upheld by this Court vide order in W.P. No. 4907 of 2009 dated 30-3-2009 and that the particulars sought for by the applicants cannot be furnished as it would affect the investigation or prosecution of offenders, etc Held that - challenge to both the orders of the Chief Information Commissioner cannot be questioned by the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, writ appeals fail and they are dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
2. Validity of the Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 158) exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Right to Information Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act regarding exemptions for intelligence and security organizations.
4. Obligation to provide information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations despite exemptions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption:
The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 158 on 26-8-2008, specifying that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 shall not apply to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. This order was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The exemption was justified on the grounds that furnishing information before completing investigations would hamper the process, especially since delinquents might seek information about their cases.

2. Validity of the Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 158) exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Right to Information Act:
The validity of G.O.Ms. No. 158 was previously upheld by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 4907 of 2009 on 30-3-2009. However, the court noted that the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The learned judge in the present case applied this principle, stating that the requested information related to corruption and thus, the exemption could not be claimed.

3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act regarding exemptions for intelligence and security organizations:
Section 24(4) allows the State Government to exempt intelligence and security organizations from the Act, but the first proviso explicitly states that information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be excluded. The court emphasized that the nature of the information requested determines the applicability of the exemption. Since the information sought by the respondents pertained to corruption, the exemption under Section 24(4) was not applicable.

4. Obligation to provide information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations despite exemptions:
The respondents sought information on completed investigations, convictions, and details of corrupt officials, which fall under allegations of corruption. The court held that the Government Order exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Act does not apply to such information. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, was directed to furnish the requested information.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the exemption under Section 24(4) does not apply to information related to allegations of corruption. The orders of the Chief Information Commissioner directing the public authority to provide the requested information were upheld. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the appeals failed, with the court emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic society.