Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India

Badar Durrez Ahmed, Actg. C.J.

The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

L.P.A. 229/2014

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.02.2014 delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 83/2014 filed by the appellant/petitioner. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (C.I.C.). The learned single Judge has extracted the relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the C.I.C. which is to the following effect:--

It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundela''s contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from C.P.I.O. of R.A.C. cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was C.P.I.O., R.A.C.. Whatever information was forwarded to Shri Bundela by C.P.I.O., R.A.C., he transmitted the same to the appellant.

As to the question of award of compensation to the appellant for supply of inaccurate and incorrect information, it has to be kept in mind that D.R.D.O. is an exempted organization u/s 24 of the R.T.I. Act. This exemption is unequivocal and binding. D.R.D.O. does not fall under the ambit of R.T.I. Act. Even so, by custom, this Commission had carved out a small jurisdiction for supply of establishment related information to the information seekers, to the total exclusion of tactical and strategic information. Even, if the appellant''s contention that detriment has been caused to her due to supply of inaccurate and incorrect information is accepted, in my opinion, it would not be legally sound either to punish Shri Bundela or to award compensation to the appellant. In view of the above, I am constrained to close this matter.

Even so, before parting with this matter, I would like to caution Shri Bundela to exercise due diligence in responding to the R.T.I. application in future.

From the above, it is apparent that the C.I.C. had recognized the fact that the said Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant/petitioner. But, the C.I.C. also noted the fact that Shri Bundela was not the holder of the information and had merely transmitted the information which had been received by him from the C.P.I.O. of the Recruitment and Assessment Centre (R.A.C.). Furthermore, the C.I.C. noted that D.R.D.O. was an exempted organization u/s 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act")- Section 24(1) of the said Act reads as under:--

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 of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty- five days from the date of the receipt of request.

On a plain reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the Act does not apply to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or to any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. It is an admitted position that D.R.D.O. is a Central Government organization and is specified in the Second Schedule. Therefore, in the first instance, D.R.D.O. 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 D.R.D.O. only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

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.

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 of human rights violations. Therefore, the C.I.C. as well as the learned single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the C.I.C. had, as a matter of course, directed the D.R.D.O. to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the D.R.D.O. The fact of the matter is that the D.R.D.O. could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act. That being the position, the provisions with regard to penalty u/s 20 of the said Act would also not apply.

Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner had candidly submitted that he had not prayed for imposition of penalty but for compensation, which, admittedly, is not provided for under the said Act. In any event, even if we construe the prayer for compensation as a prayer for imposing penalty u/s 20 of the said Act, the same cannot be granted in view of the fact that the information sought by the appellant/petitioner did not pertain to allegations of corruption or of human rights violations. That being the case, the Act itself does not apply to the D.R.D.O., particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Insofar as vindication of the stand of the appellant/petitioner is concerned, that aspect of the matter has already been recognized by the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the C.I.C. where it has been observed that as a matter of fact Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant/petitioner. Be that as it may, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed, however, there is no order as to costs.