2022 (4) TMI 60 - HC - Indian Laws

Corruption - Human Rights violation - Seeking copies of all the seniority list in respect of LDCs for the period of 1991 till date - seeking copies of the proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time - Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the Appellant is an intelligence and security organization specified in Second Schedule of RTI Act and is exempt from the purview of RTI Act except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation. Consequently, the submission made by Mr.Amit Mahajan is correct that the Appellant cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of RTI Act except when the information sought pertains to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation. This Court is of the opinion that the expression human rights cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of the accused alone. Human rights have been used for a variety of purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to determining the end of hunger and of medial neglect. In fact, the human rights are both progressive and transformative. Non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same, respondent no. 2 would not be able to agitate her right to promotion - HELD THAT - In fact, RTI Act is a tool which facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically. According to Statement of Objects and Reasons, the intent and purpose of RTI Act is to secure access to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. It is said that Sunlight is the best disinfectant and RTI Act promotes the said concept. Consequently, both service and RTI laws act like a safety valve in the society - In the opinion of this Court, the employees of a security establishment cannot be deprived of their fundamental and legal rights just because they work in an intelligence and security establishment. To hold so would amount to holding that those who serve in these organizations have no human rights. This Court is also not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that only such information that is furnished by the exempted organization to the Government pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation is to be provided - non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same respondent No.2 would not be able to agitate her right to promotion. Information pertaining to proposals for promotion of third parties cannot be provided to the respondent in view of Section 11 of the RTI Act - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that information pertaining to proposals for promotion of third parties cannot be provided to the respondent in view of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. This Court directs the Appellant to provide copies of all the seniority list in respect of LDCs for the period of 1991 till date as well as copies of the proposal for promotion of respondent (LDC) placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copy of the promotion/rejection order issued on the recommendations of DPC from time to time - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the RTI Act to intelligence and security organizations.
2. Interpretation of the term "human rights" under the RTI Act.
3. Whether the non-supply of information/documentation constitutes a human rights violation.
4. Disclosure of information pertaining to third-party promotions under the RTI Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the RTI Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations:
The appellant argued that as an intelligence and security organization specified in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, it is exempt from the purview of the Act except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The Court upheld this view, citing Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, which provides immunity to such organizations from disclosing information unless it pertains to corruption or human rights violations. This was supported by the Division Bench decision in *Esab India Limited v. Special Director of Enforcement & Ors.*, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24 of the RTI Act.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Human Rights":
The Court examined whether the information sought by the respondent falls within the scope of "human rights." The term "human rights" is defined in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants. The Court emphasized that human rights should not be given a narrow or pedantic meaning and are both progressive and transformative.

3. Non-Supply of Information as a Human Rights Violation:
The Court held that the non-supply of the information/documents requested by the respondent constitutes a human rights violation because it impedes her ability to agitate her right to promotion. The Court reasoned that employees have a legitimate expectation of promotion and should be able to agitate their grievances before judicial forums. The RTI Act serves as a tool to facilitate this process, promoting transparency and accountability in public authorities.

4. Disclosure of Information Pertaining to Third-Party Promotions:
The Court concluded that information pertaining to proposals for the promotion of third parties cannot be provided to the respondent in view of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, which protect third-party information from disclosure. However, the Court directed the appellant to provide copies of all seniority lists in respect of LDCs from 1991 to date, as well as copies of the proposal for the respondent's promotion placed before the DPC, including Minutes of the Meetings and promotion/rejection orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC.

Conclusion:
The present appeal was disposed of with the direction to the appellant to provide specific information to the respondent while protecting third-party information from disclosure. The Court clarified the applicability of the RTI Act to intelligence and security organizations and emphasized the broad and transformative nature of human rights.