AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 09.06.2017 (hereafter ''the impugned order'') passed by the Central
Information Commission (hereafter ''the CIC'') allowing the second appeal (Appeal No.CIC/SB/A/2016/001171/MP) preferred by respondent
no.2 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ''the Act'').
By the impugned order, the CIC rejected the petitioner''s contention that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter ''the CBI'') was outside
the purview of Section 24 of the Act and was therefore not obliged to disclose the information as sought for by respondent no.2. Accordingly, the
petitioner was directed to disclose the information as sought for by respondent no.2.
Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-
3.1 Respondent no.2 is an Officer with the CBI and is currently posted in STF, CBI (H.O.), New Delhi. Respondent no.2 was
transferred from Imphal to Delhi on 12.09.2013. The CBI initiated departmental proceedings against respondent no.2 under Rule 14
of the CCA (CCS) Rules, 1965. The petitioner further claims that the allegations made against respondent no. 2 are grave as well as
sensitive in nature.
3.2 Respondent no.2 filed an application dated 01.02.2016 under the Act seeking certain information relating to the disciplinary
proceedings - Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major penalty - initiated against him. The petitioner declined to disclose the
information sought on the ground that the CBI was placed in the Second Schedule to the Act and thus was outside the purview of the
Act.
3.3 Respondent no.2 filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority which was also rejected by an
order dated 17.03.2016.
3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.2 preferred a second appeal (CIC/SB/A/2016/000656/MP) before the CIC which
was also rejected by an order dated 16.03.2017.
3.5 Respondent no.2, thereafter, once again filed an application dated 29.04.2016 under the Act seeking certain information relating
to the RDA for major penalty initiated against respondent no.2.
3.6 Respondent no.2''s request for information was denied for the same reason as it was denied earlier; that is, the CBI was outside
the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24 of the Act. Respondent no.2''s first appeal against the denial of information did not
meet with any success and was rejected by the First Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.05.2016.
3.7 Respondent no.2 preferred the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, which was allowed by the impugned order.
It is apparent from the plain reading of the impugned order that the CIC was of the view that the exclusionary clause of section 24(1) of the Act
was not available in respect of information sought by its own officials regarding their service matters. The CIC held that since the matter involved
the case of the CBI''s official (respondent no.2), he had the right to know information regarding his case. The CIC further held that the petitioner
had to prove that the information sought for by respondent no.2 was of the nature as specified under Section 24 of the Act. The relevant extract of
the impugned order is set out below:-
However, the mater at present involves the case of CBI''s own official and the appellant has a right to know about his own case and a public
authority which seeks to claim the exemption u/s 24 of the Act from disclosure of information, available with it and pertaining to its own
employee/official, has to show/prove that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section24 of the Act, to the satisfaction of the
Commission. The CPIO has, without applying his mind and keeping in view the very object of the RTI Act, 2005 r/w Section 24, denied
information to the appellant on no legal grounds. The decision of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court, in the case of B.S. Mathur vs. PIO, is relevant in
this regard:
The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception
The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to revisit the appellant''s RTI application and reply to him, point wise, keeping in view the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 24(1) of the Act, which is set out below:
Act not to apply in 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 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.
A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Act clearly indicates that it is an exclusionary clause and all intelligence and security organisations
specified in the Second Schedule of the Act are excluded from the purview of the Act. The only exemption carved out is by the First Proviso to
Section 24(1) of the Act. In terms of the said proviso, all information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not
within the exclusionary clause. Thus, notwithstanding, that CBI is excluded from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24(1) of the Act, it is
nonetheless obliged to disclose the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Obviously, this is subject to the
other provisions of the Act including Section 8(1) of the Act.
Mr Anurag Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 contended that the information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to
the disciplinary proceedings, which had commenced in 2011 but were not being proceeded with. And, in the meanwhile, respondent no.2''s
promotion had been withheld solely due to pendency of the said proceedings. He earnestly contended that this was causing respondent no.2''s
immense distress and the same fell within the scope of the expression ""human rights violations"" as used in the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the
Act.
The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter
and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as ""violation of human rights"".
The expression ''Human Rights'' denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family.
In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General
Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.
India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The expression ''Human Rights'' is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean ""the rights relating to life,
liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts
in India"".
The expression ''Human Rights Violation'' as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person
alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The
grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations.
In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that ""No
violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity,
etc.
In view of the above, the impugned order directing the petitioner to disclose the information sought for by respondent no.2 cannot be
sustained.
It is also relevant to state that the CIC in the earlier round had rejected respondent no.2''s second appeal against denial of information. The
relevant extract of the order dated 16.03.2017 passed by CIC in Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000656/MP reads as under:-
On hearing both the parties and going through the available record, the Commission finds that the appellant had not substantiated allegation
regarding corruption and human right violations. Therefore, the respondent authority has appropriately claimed exemption. The Commission further
notes that while there was no delay on the part of the CPIO, almost a month had been taken for placing the RTI application before the CPIO. The
Commission, therefore, recommends to the competent authority to streamline the office processes relating to handling of RTI applications. The
appeal is disposed of.
Concededly, the nature of information sought, the denial of which was subject matter of the said appeal (Appeal No.
CIC/SB/A/2016/000656/MP), is the same as the subject matter of respondent no.2''s application dated 29.04.2016. Thus, clearly, the CIC fell in
error in not referring to and following its earlier decision.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The pending applications are also disposed of with the
aforesaid observations. The parties are left to bear their own costs.