2012 (8) TMI 715 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI Act - application with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) about the action taken report (ATR) on a complaint made to the Central Vigilance Commission Held that - Disclosure of information relating to alleged charges of corruption and misappropriation of government money - allegation and/or complaint, vigilance enquiry and the enquiry reports were in respect of the Ambassador in her official capacity and related to her office and acts/omissions therein and also because all the information sought by the Appellant exists in official records already, hence the information cannot be classified as personal nor exemption be sought on that ground - since the information sought relates to allegations of misappropriation of government money, public money being at stake, the information cannot be considered as personal information and hence the information does not fall under provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 - information as sought by the Appellant be provided - No authority can proceed on the assumption that an information ordered to be disclosed will be misused - mere expression of an apprehension of possible misuse of information cannot justify non-disclosure of information

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Information Commission (CIC) under RTI Act, 2005 for disclosure of information sought by respondent regarding complaint on misuse of government money in Embassy of India, Ankara, Turkey.

Analysis:
1. Disclosure of Information Requested by Respondent:
- Respondent sought information on complaint regarding misuse of government money.
- CIC directed disclosure of information, rejecting CPIO's denial under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
- Public interest outweighed any harm to protected interests in disclosing the information.

2. Review of CIC Order:
- CIC received a request for review from MEA invoking Section 11 of RTI Act due to objection by Ambassador.
- Ambassador's objections based on lack of confidence in investigations were rejected by CIC.
- CIC inspected the enquiry report and notings, finding most allegations baseless with no financial loss to the government.

3. Public Interest vs. Right to Privacy:
- MEA expressed concern about adverse impact on Ministry's morale and possible media distortion.
- CIC emphasized disclosure of information on alleged charges crucial for public faith in Ministry and CVC.
- CIC clarified that public interest in disclosure outweighed any privacy claim by the Ambassador.

4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Justification:
- Reference to Arvind Kejriwal case where procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act was emphasized for third-party information.
- Court rejected arguments against disclosure based on baseless allegations and lack of justification for non-disclosure.

5. Conclusion:
- Court upheld CIC's decision for disclosure of information sought by respondent.
- CIC's use of Section 10(1) of RTI Act for severance of exempted parts was justified.
- No grounds found for interference with CIC's order, dismissing the writ petition and pending application.