9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1361 - HC - Indian LawsViolation of Human Rights - allegations of sexual harassment - Direction to Petitioner to supply information to the Respondents holding that the information sought by the Respondents does not fall under the exemption provided in the proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the information requested is only about recruitment rules, thus bearing in mind the various judicial precedents, including the decision of this Court in titled Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya 2018 (3) TMI 1251 - DELHI HIGH COURT as also the recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Court is of the view that this is not a case which would involve any human rights violation and is accordingly not exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The ED is exempted under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 from disclosing the said information. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2019 passed by the CIC is set aside. In this case, the non-disclosure of information of allegations of sexual harassment, in the opinion of this Court, would fall clearly within the conspectus of human rights violations, as exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. In view thereof, the ED is directed to disclose the information sought by the RTI Applicant/Respondent within eight weeks. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is exempt from disclosing information under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. 2. Whether the information sought in the RTI applications falls within the exceptions to the exemption under Section 24, specifically concerning allegations of corruption or human rights violations. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005: The primary issue revolves around whether the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is exempt from disclosing information under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 24 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations listed in the Second Schedule from the purview of the RTI Act, except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The ED is included in this list, and thus, generally exempt from providing information under the RTI Act. The court considered previous judgments, such as Adarsh Sharma, Dr. Neelam Bhalla, and CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, which affirmed that organizations like the IB, DRDO, and ED are exempt under Section 24. These judgments clarified that information not related to corruption or human rights violations cannot be compelled to be disclosed. 2. Exceptions to the Exemption - Allegations of Corruption or Human Rights Violations: The second issue pertains to whether the information sought falls within the exceptions to the exemption, specifically concerning allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The court analyzed two writ petitions: - W.P.(C) 1640/2020: The RTI application sought information about recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Officer. The court held that this information does not pertain to human rights violations or corruption and thus remains exempt under Section 24. Consequently, the CIC's order directing disclosure was set aside. - W.P.(C) 5588/2019: The RTI application involved allegations of sexual harassment. The court found that non-disclosure of information related to such allegations falls within the scope of human rights violations. Therefore, the court directed the ED to disclose the requested information, as it is not exempt under Section 24. The court also noted the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, which did not approve the reasoning of the Division Bench in allowing disclosure of service records as human rights violations but left the question of law open for future consideration. Conclusion: The court concluded that while the ED is generally exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act, exceptions apply in cases involving human rights violations. In W.P.(C) 1640/2020, the information sought did not qualify for these exceptions, and the CIC's order was set aside. However, in W.P.(C) 5588/2019, the information related to allegations of sexual harassment was deemed to fall within the exception, and disclosure was ordered. The court emphasized that each case must be evaluated individually to determine applicability under Section 24.
|
