9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtified copy of the IB report relating to the respondent, as sought for by him by an application dated 05.12.2015. 3. The directions have been issued by the CIC on arriving at the following conclusion a) It is factually proved that appellant was put to extreme hardship by the corrupt political rulers and corrupt public servants In retaliation of his unstinted Implementation of rule of law. b) The gist of IB report as furnished by IB in response to the RTI request of appellant in this case shows that its disclosure could cause no harm to core activity of security or intelligence of IB. c) section 24 of RTI Act does not authorize the public authorities exempted under this section to block entire Information held by it or generated and given to other public authorities enbloc, but it exclusion from disclosure is limited to that which pertains to core functioning of 'security' and 'intelligence' aspect of exempted organization. d) The IB report sought by appellant is not the information excluded from purview of disclosure by RTI Act. e) The IB report is information as per Section 2(f) held by MoEF and also information pertaining to the allegation of corruption or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of copy of the IB report on the ground that the same was exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 24 of the Act. 9. Consequent to the denial of supply of copy of the IB report, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act with the Central Information Commission. 10. The petitioner as well as the CPIO, MoEF opposed the application, filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act, on the ground that the information was exempted from disclosure as the report was an intelligence report of the Intelligence Bureau, which is one of the organizations mentioned in the Schedule of the Act and exempted in terms of Section 24 of the Act. 11. The CPIO also relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 09.10.2013 in WP(C) 7453/2011 titled UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. ADARSH SHARMA to contend that the exception carved out from the exemption would be applicable in case the allegation of corruption and the human right violation was with regard to the intelligence Bureau. 12. The CIC allowed the application of the respondent under Section 24 of the Act and passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2016. 13. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner i.e. the CPIO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 591 to contend that a proviso cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has been provided for nor can it be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the enactment or to take away in entirety a right that has been conferred. Further, that a Court has no power to add or subtract even a single interpretation to legislation. Reference is also drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in ROHITASH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA: (2013) 11 SCC 451. 17. The respondent, in his response, has contended that the respondent, who is an officer belonging to 2002 batch of Indian Forrest Service, was earlier allocated Haryana Cadre, which was subsequently changed to Uttrakhand in August 2015, on account of extreme hardships. It is contended that the gist of the Intelligence Bureau report, copy of which had been sought by the respondent, as disclosed to the respondent states that "there appears to be truth in the contention of Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi regarding alleged harassment meted out to him by Haryana Government. His request for change of cadre from Haryana to Uttarakhand merits consideration." It is contended that the gist of the report clearly evidences that the case involves issue of corrupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that several Ministries and Organizations of the Central Government have disclosed information supplied to them by the Intelligence Bureau in cases of corruption without claiming exemptions under Section 24 of the Act. 25. The question that arises for consideration is whether the exception carved out by the proviso to Section 24 would apply only if the allegation of corruption or human rights violations were with regard to the Intelligence Bureau itself or pertaining to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau? 26. Section 24 (1) of the Act reads as under:- "24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.-- (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not. 32. The Judgments in the case of SUNDARAM PILLAI (Supra) and ROHITASH KUMAR (supra) are clearly not applicable in the facts of the present case. The interpretation as rendered above, does not nullify the enactment or take away a right in entirety. In fact, the right to obtain information, conferred by the Act, is taken away by the exclusion in Section 24 of the Act. The proviso carves out an exception to the exclusion clause and further brings the information within the ambit of the Act. The proviso is in line with the very object of the Act. 33. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION V. R. KARTHIKEYAN, AIR 2012 Mad 84 has very aptly culled out the necessity and the object for enactment of the Act in the following manner: "8. India has adopted a democratic form of Government and no democratic Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the Government. It is only when the people know how the Government is functioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia more effective. 11. Though the Indian Constitution has no express provision guaranteeing the right to information, it has been recognized by the Courts in a plethora of cases as implicit in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees to all citizens the right to free speech and expression, and Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life in accordance with due process to all citizens. The background of the enactment will not be complete if the contribution of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the legislation is not mentioned. The Apex Court in the decision in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, interpreted Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India so widely so as to include so many rights within its sweeping shadow. One such right is the right to information. It is observed in the said judgment that "the right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute is a factor which should make wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security." The Apex Court further observed that "the people of this country have the right to know every public act, everything that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the citizens is necessary for proper functioning particularly in matters which form part of a public record. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel of the Petitioner do not also say that right to information is absolute. There are several areas where such information need not be furnished. Even the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, to which also reference has been made, does not say in absolute terms that information gathered at any level in any manner for any purpose shall be disclosed to the public." 34. CIC has found that the Respondent was put to extreme hardship by the corrupt political rulers and corrupt public servants in retaliation of his unstinted Implementation of rule of law. CIC has further found that the gist of IB report as furnished by IB in response to the RTI request of appellant shows that its disclosure could cause no harm to core activity of security or intelligence of IB. The IB report is information as per Section 2(f) held by MoEF and the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation. 35. Clearly, the information sought by the respondent falls in the category of being exempt from the exclusion clause and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
