9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders, 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 - 320-321 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2011 - D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Desinghu, Special Govt. Pleader, for the Appellant. S/Shri R. Karthikeyan, Party-in-person, M. Muthupandian, P. Kannan for G.R. Associates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D. Murugesan, J.]. Both the writ appeals, at the instance of the State, are directed against the common order dismissing the writ petitions. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the writ petitions and the writ appeals are as follows. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 26-8-2008 specifying that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) shall not apply to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption organizations. It also issued a notification to the said effect in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police. Central Range/Public Information Officer by letter dated 12-12-2008 informed the first respondent that the Act shall not apply to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as per the Government Order dated 26-8-2008 and that the authenticated press release cited by the first respondent was not received in the Directorate and therefore refused to furnish the information. Thereafter, the second appeal of the first respondent was considered by the second respondent-State Information Commission and after holding of enquiry on 24-9-2009, the second respondent, by order dated 16-10-2009, directed the appellant-public authority to furnish the particulars to the first respondent within two weeks of the receipt of the order. 4. Likewise, Thiru R. Karthikeyan, the first respondent in W.A. No. 320 of 2010, filed an application dated 30-12-2008 before the Public Information Officer. Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai seeking for certain particulars under the Right to Information Act, namely, as to how many) police stations/wings/branches within the Chennai city were raided by the DVAC officials during the last five years i.e., from January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was preferred before the State Information Commission on 4-6-2009. The State Information Commission considered the said appeal and after holding of enquiry on 14-9-2009, the second respondent, by order dated 16-10-2009, directed the appellant-public authority to furnish the information to the first respondent within two weeks of the receipt of the order in full and free of cost. 5. Both the above orders dated 16-10-2009 were questioned by the Superintendent of Police. Central Range Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Writ Petition Nos. 23507 and 23508 of 2009 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. By the impugned common order dated 12-1-2010 [2011 (266) E.L.T. 456 (Mad.)], both the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge with a direction to the appellant/writ petitioner to furnish the info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is now widely recognised that openness and accessibility of people to information about the government s functioning is a vital component of democracy. Disclosure of allowable information would lead to better system and it would be in the public interest that a public authority should throw open the process of public scrutiny, which would result in evolving a better system. Disclosure of information would compromise the integrity and efficiency of the functioning of the public authority. In an increasingly knowledge-based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits and distribution of power. Information, more than any other clement, is of critical importance in a participatory democracy. 9. The Right to Information Act is a rights based enactment more akin to any other enactments safeguarding fundamental rights. As the statement of the object of the Act goes, democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information. The Act encompasses basically two things, firstly, the right of a citizen to seek for information to which he is entitled under the provisions of the Act and the corresponding duty of the information officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. The Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 179, the Apex Court, while considering the freedom of speech and expression in the light of the right to information, has observed that freedom of speech and expression is basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It includes the right to impart and receive information. The Apex Court has also observed that for ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of the country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues and a successful democracy posits an aware citizenry. 13. The pride for enactment of the Right to Information Act would certainly go to the iudiciary as could be seen from certain observations of the Hon ble Apex Court in some of the judgments. The judgment in Union of India v. Association for Democractic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 is again a forerunner for recognising the right to information as a fundamental right and the said judgment laid the foundation over which the superstructure of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was built. In Peoples Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section. Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of receipt of request. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms. No. 158 dated 26-8-2008, reads as under :- 3. The State Vigilance Commission and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption primarily deal with investigation into alleged corrupt activities of public servants. The investigations and subsequent actions culminate in disciplinary action or criminal action in the appropriate courts of law. Confidentiality and secrecy in certain cases requires to be maintained during the whole process from the initial stage upto filing of charge sheet in the court on the one hand and upto issue of final orders in the case of disciplinary proceedings. Revealing any Information to any agency including the aggrieved person woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The application of the notification depends upon the nature of information required. In this context, we may refer that the first respondent in W.A. No. 321 of 2010 has 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. Likewise the first respondent in W.A. No. 320 of 2010 has sought for the particulars relating to the number of police stations/wings/branches within the Chennai city were raided by the DVAC officials during the last five years i.e., from January, 2003, how many police officials were caught during the raids, the list of names, the designation and the address of such officials who were caught and the amount recovered from each official, details of departmental actions taken against such official including the copy of enquiry report, the details of prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
