High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition received by way of transfer from the Court of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Apex Court vide order dated 1 October, 2021 had directed the High Court to decide the writ petition within eight weeks. Consequently, the matter was taken up for hearing on priority basis.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No.2 is working as a Superintendent in Administration with Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’). She had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking some information. The information was directed to be furnished by the Appellant to respondent no.2 by CIC. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant had filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) 13257/2018. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 7thDecember, 2018. Upon the present Letter Patent Appeal being filed, learned predecessor Division Bench, vide order dated 21st December, 2018 had issued notices. However, the application for stay filed by the Appellant was disposed of. The Appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 21st December, 2018 refusing grant of stay. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant vide order dated 1st October, 2021 with a direction to this Court to decide the issue with respect to applicability of the RTI Act to the Appellant and thereafter decide the stay application.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has held that the information sought by respondent No.2 does not fall under the purview of Section 24 of the RTI Act. He submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the information should be provided to respondent No.2 since it did not pertain to intelligence or security and secrecy of the Appellant organization.
It was contended that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. He submitted that the Legislature has granted complete immunity to the organizations mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act and thus they cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the only exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 24 are when the information so sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation [first proviso to Section 24 (1)]. He further submitted that in relation to the organizations specified, providing information is an exception unlike others where withholding the information is an exception.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the absence of information sought for, the respondent is unable to enforce her fundamental and legal right to promotion. He specifically asserts that despite the order dated 10th October, 2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, no information has been furnished by the Appellant to the respondent till date.
HC’s Observations:
The question before the Court was whether the information sought for by the respondent falls within the expression ‘human rights. HC stated that the appellant is an intelligence and security organization specified in second schedule of the RTI act and is exempt from the purview of the RTI act except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
HC stated that 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. HC opined that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of the accused alone. Human rights have been used for a variety of purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to determining the end of hunger and of medial neglect. In fact, the human rights are both progressive and transformative.
HC stated that employees have a legitimate expectation of promotion. It is not the case of the Appellant that its employees and officers cannot file legal proceedings to air their grievances with regard to service conditions and wrongful denial of promotions. The intent of service jurisprudence at the level of any establishment/organization is to promote peace and harmony and at the level of the society, the objective is to promote human rights. If employees of an establishment cannot agitate their grievances before judicial forums, these organizations/establishments may become autocratic.
HC stated that RTI Act is a tool which facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically. According to Statement of Objects and Reasons, the intent and purpose of RTI Act is to secure access to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. HC opined that the employees of a security establishment cannot be deprived of their fundamental and legal rights just because they work in an intelligence and security establishment. To hold so would amount to holding that those who serve in these organizations have no human rights.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “it is also pertinent to mention that the respondent by way of RTI application in question is not seeking information with regard to any investigation or intelligence or covert operations carried out nationally or internationally. This Court clarifies that the respondents may be well entitled to deny information under the RTI Act, if the facts of a case so warrant. Consequently, in the present case, non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same respondent No.2 would not be able to agitate her right to promotion. However, this Court is of the view that information pertaining to proposals for promotion of third parties cannot be provided to the respondent in view of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act.”
Case Title: Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Citation: LPA 734/2018
Decided on: 22nd March, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :