9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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. - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. For the Appellant : Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Manisha Dubey and Kanishk Maurya, Advs. for the Petitioner. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar JUDGMENT PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. These matters have been taken up on office note as the Registry has inadvertently not listed the matters on 31st October, 2023. Brief Facts 3. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner - Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seeking quashing of the orders dated 18th March, 2019 and 27th November, 2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Petitioner to supply information to the Respondents holding that the information so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this order. W.P.(C) 5588/2019 7. The present petition has been preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) challenging the impugned order dated 18th March, 2019 passed by the CIC. 8. The RTI Applicant/Respondent in this case i.e. Dr. Sonali G. Badhe Assistant Legal Adviser, Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad filed an RTI Application dated 5th April, 2017 seeking certain information and details regarding implementation of the order dated 21st June, 2016 against Mr. A.C Singh which related to certain allegations of sexual harassment made by the RTI Applicant/Respondent. 9. The CPIO in its reply dated 8th May, 2017 held that the documents and information sought cannot be provided in view of the exemption granted under section 24 read with 2nd Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter the appeal filed by the RTI Applicant/Respondent was also rejected on 14th June, 2017 by relying upon the same Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that the information sought by RTI Applicant/Respondent did not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation and the order passed by the CPIO was right and within the scope and ambit of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial precedents, the consistent view has been that the IB, ED and DRDO are considered to be exempted organizations as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Analysis 14. This Court has heard the submissions made by Mr. Hossain, ld. Counsel for the ED. The Respondents have not appeared in these matters. 15. These two matters were kept part heard, awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP challenging the decision passed by ld. Division bench of this Court in Union of India v. Central Information Commission (supra). 16. The first decision that would be relevant in the present case is the decision in Adarsh Sharma (supra) where the ld. Single Judge of this Court has held that the IB is an organisation which would be covered by Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. After having held so, the Court observed as under: 4. The information sought by the respondent was neither any information related to the allegations of corruption in Intelligence Bureau nor an information related to the human rights violations. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing the Intelligence Bureau to provide the said information to the respondent under the provisions of Right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izations established by the Central Government or to any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. It is an admitted position that DRDO is a Central Government organization and is specified in the Second Schedule. Therefore, in the first instance, DRDO is an exempted organization and the said Act does not apply to it. However, the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the said Act clearly stipulates that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not to be excluded under this sub-section. In other words, the Act would apply to DRDO only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. 4. In the present case, we note that the learned Single Judge has observed that the information sought by the appellant/petitioner did not pertain to corruption or human rights violations and, therefore, did not fall within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the said Act. 5. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not preclude the respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against Ms Thomas Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law. 21. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, ld. Counsel for the ED, fairly submits that the Division Bench of this Court had taken a different view in decision dated 22nd March, 2022 in titled Central Information Commission (supra). In the said judgment, the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that the non-supply of information relating to the service record could be considered as human rights violation and had, therefore, allowed the disclosure of the information by the ED under the RTI Act, 2005. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: 15. Accordingly, the issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the information sought for by the respondent falls within the expression 'human rights'. 16. Though, the term 'human rights' has not been defined in the RTI Act, yet it has been defined in the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 (in short '1993 Act'). Section 2(1)(d) of the 1993 Act provides for definition of the term 'human rights' which reads as under: '2. Definitions (1) In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations , yet upon a perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge (which was authored by one of us i.e., Manmohan, J), it is apparent that the Appellant-petitioner in that case had sought compensation and disciplinary action against certain Government officials for furnishing inaccurate and incomplete information. Consequently, the observations in the said judgment have to be read in the light of the issue that arose for consideration. Further, in Dr. Neelam Bhalla (supra), the concept of human rights was neither argued nor dealt with. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment offers no assistance to the Appellant. 22. 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. 23. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent by way of RTI application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the RTI Applicant vide his RTI application dated 30th January, 2018 sought the following information/documents: 1. Please provide me legible photocopy of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement officer since 1990 to till date and copy of amendment if any thereof. 2. Copy of note sheet pages of that Recruitment Rules file, which -was put up during the process of change of Recruitment Rules for the Post of Assistant Enforcement officer where the reason for change of Recruitment Rules i.e. one set of Recruitment Rules is replaced by another one is clearly mentioned in the notes since 1990 to till date. 3. Copy of note sheet pages/correspondence pages of Recruitment Rules file, where the DOPT has accorded for the change of above said Recruitment Rules for the Post of Assistant Enforcement officer since 1990 to till date. 4. Copy of the notes sheet/correspondence pages of that Recruitment Rules file for the post of Assistant Enforcement officer where the objection was raised during the finalization of present Recruitment Rules by the DOPT/Ministry of Law. 5. Please provide me information regarding maintenance of seniority list for the Post of Assistant Enforcement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
