Shri Hossain Sahid Abedin vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated March 22, 2011 is questioning an order of the Central Information Commission (in short CIC) dated February 2, 2011 (WP p.32). On the basis of information provided by its source the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) filed a criminal case against the petitioner. The allegations were found to be baseless and the case was filed. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission (in short CVC) against the CBI. The CVC found substance in the complaint.

Thereupon the petitioner and his wife applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asking the Central Public Information Officer (in short CPIO) of the CBI to provide them certain information about the criminal case. The five second appeals in connection wherewith the impugned order was passed arose out of such applications of the petitioner and his wife filed before the CPIO.

By an order dated January 5, 2011 the CIC disposed of the second appeals. The CBI''s contention that it was entitled to seek exemption from disclosure of source materials was not accepted by the CIC that directed the CPIO to show the petitioner and his wife all records pertaining to the criminal case including the complaint filed by the source except the case diary, and also to give them photocopies of the records chosen by them.

By the impugned order dated February 2, 2011 the CIC directed as follows:-

After hearing the submissions of both the parties, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 15 days from the receipt of this order the photocopies of the entire records relating to this case. However, the name of the informant and all references to the sources information be deleted before disclosing the information. Besides, the CPIO shall also confirm in a sworn affidavit that there are no other records in this case to be disclosed.

Mr. Roychowdhury appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. The CIC was wrong in granting exemption from the disclosure of the identity of the source of information; for the exemption was granted overlooking the provisions of sub-s.(2) of s.8 of the Act. The evident public interest in the disclosure outweighed the harm to the protected interests.

In my opinion, the provisions of sub-s.(2) of s.8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 were not applicable to the case. In the demand for disclosure of the identity of the source of the information no element of public interest was involved; it was only a private interest. Hence the CIC was not required to examine whether public interest in the disclosure would outweigh the harm to the protected interests.

I am also of the opinion that the CBI rightly claimed exemption under s.8 (1)(g) that is quoted below:-

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

In the face of the clear provisions of cl.(g) of sub-s.(1) of s.8 of the Act, I am unable to see how the petitioner could demand that the CBI must disclose the identity of its source of the information on the basis whereof it initiated the criminal case in question. I am, therefore, of the view that the CIC rightly granted the exemption from the disclosure of the identity of the source of the information. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.