9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 (RTI Act). 2. The Respondent filed an application with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on 16th September 2008 about the action taken report (ATR) on a complaint made to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 13th April 2007. Apparently the said complaint was forwarded by the CVC to the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO), MEA. The CVO submitted the ATR to the CVC on 24th July 2007. In this connection, the Respondent requested certified copies of the following documents : (a) copies of all departmental notings including recorded by CVO/Inquiry Officer/Cadre Controlling Authority/Disciplinary Authority/any other official(s), if any. (b) copies of all correspondences between De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utweighs any harm done to protected interests. Accordingly, the CPIO was directed to provide all the information sought by the Respondent in his RTI application by 15th June 2009 under intimation to the Commission. 6. Thereafter, the CIC received a letter dated 15th June 2009 from the CPIO, MEA seeking review of its order 18th May 2009 in view of the objection raised by the Third Party i.e. the Ambassador of India at Turkey during the relevant time. The MEA invoked the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Notice was sent to the Ambassador for the hearing on 17th August 2009. On that hearing the CVO file containing the enquiry report and other relevant documents were brought in a sealed cover to the office of the CIC. These were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 2009. The observations of the CIC on the further examination are as under : The contents of the CVO file inspected by the Commission clearly indicate that the information therein are not by any stretch of imagination personal information pertaining to the Ambassador. The allegations cast as well as the inquiry/investigation conducted were related to the Ambassador in her official capacity and dealt with alleged complaints about misappropriation of government money. The transactions with respect to government money is anyway liable for a government audit, which has been noted even during the investigation by various officials, so there can be no confidentiality and/or secrecy in divulging such information since the expenditure of governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied as personal nor exemption be sought on that ground? 12. As far as the distortion of the CIC orders in the hands of the media is concerned, it was held that it could not be a ground for not disclosing the information. The CIC specifically dealt with the aspect of public interest in ordering disclosure of information pertaining to a third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC observed as under : In this contention it is important to remember that the public interest has to be established in case the information sought otherwise merits non-disclosure, falling within one of the exempted categories and not vice versa. It has amply been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that since the information sought relates to allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that where the information sought related to a third party the procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act could not be dispensed with. Consequently, the appeals filed by Mr. Kejriwal were restored to the file of the CIC for compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. 17. In the present case, as has been noticed hereinbefore, on a request of the MEA to review its order on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the matter was heard on 25th August 2009 and 28th August 2009 and notice was issued to the Ambassador for personal hearing on 28h August 2009. The Ambassador was heard by the CIC. It was after carrying out this exercise under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act that the CIC came to the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices that the CIC has also exercised a degree of caution in permitting the MEA to use Section 10(1) of the RTI Act and if so required, severe those parts which might compromise the sources of the MEA. The procedure followed by the CIC with reference to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and its reasoning cannot be faulted. The apprehension expressed before the CIC about the possible misuse of the information by the Respondent was also expressed before this Court. No authority can proceed on the assumption that an information ordered to be disclosed will be misused. The mere expression of an apprehension of possible misuse of information cannot justify non-disclosure of information. 21. This Court finds no ground having made out for inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
