2015 (2) TMI 333 - HC - Indian Laws

Denial of information sought for - Denial on the ground that exemption granted under Section 24(1) - Held that - Learned Single Judge has observed that the information sought by the appellant/petitioner did not pertain to corruption or human rights violations and, therefore, did not fall within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the said Act. - inasmuch as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act. That being the position, the provisions with regard to penalty under Section 20 of the said Act would also not apply. Appellant/petitioner had candidly submitted that he had not prayed for imposition of penalty but for compensation, which, admittedly, is not provided for under the said Act. In any event, even if we construe the prayer for compensation as a prayer for imposing penalty under Section 20 of the said Act, the same cannot be granted in view of the fact that the information sought by the appellant/petitioner did not pertain to allegations of corruption or of human rights violations. That being the case, the Act itself does not apply to the DRDO, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. - Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding inaccurate information.
2. Applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 to exempted organizations.
3. Provision of compensation under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Issue 1: Challenge to CIC Order on Inaccurate Information
The judgment pertains to an appeal against a CIC order where it was acknowledged that inaccurate information was provided to the appellant. The CIC highlighted that the individual transmitting the information was not the holder of the information but merely forwarded details received from the CPIO. Despite recognizing the inaccuracies, the CIC emphasized that the organization in question fell under the exemption clause of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The CIC, while acknowledging the appellant's grievances, concluded that penalizing the individual providing the information or awarding compensation was not legally justified due to the organization's exempted status under the Act.

Issue 2: Applicability of RTI Act to Exempted Organizations
The judgment delves into the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to exempted organizations, specifically highlighting Section 24(1) of the Act. It was noted that the Act does not apply to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule if established by the Central Government. The exemption, however, does not extend to information related to corruption or human rights violations. In this case, the organization in question, DRDO, being a Central Government entity specified in the Second Schedule, was considered exempted. The judgment clarified that the Act would apply to exempted organizations only concerning information related to corruption or human rights violations.

Issue 3: Provision of Compensation under Section 20 of the RTI Act
The judgment addressed the provision of compensation under Section 20 of the RTI Act, emphasizing that the Act does not mandate compensation for inaccurate information unless it pertains to corruption or human rights violations. The appellant's request for compensation was deemed inappropriate as it did not involve allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The judgment highlighted that even if the compensation request was construed as a penalty under Section 20, it could not be granted due to the nature of the information sought, which did not fall within the Act's purview. Ultimately, the dismissal of the appeal was based on the lack of merit, with no costs imposed.

In summary, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding a challenge to a CIC order, the applicability of the RTI Act to exempted organizations, and the provision of compensation under Section 20 of the Act. It clarifies the legal standing concerning inaccurate information, organizational exemptions, and compensation provisions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.