Delhi High Court
Directorate General Of Security ... vs Harender on 16 September, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgement pronounced on:16.09.2013
+ W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013
DIRECTORATE GENERAL
OF SECURITY AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Sanjiv Saxena,
Advs.
versus
HARENDER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shanmuga Patro, Adv. with
Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
The respondent before this Court is working with Aviation Research
Centre, which is part of the Cabinet Secretariat. The respondent applied to
the CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat seeking photocopies of the proceedings
and minutes of the DCPs held from 2000 to 2009 including of the file notings
and correspondence led to the above-referred DPCs. The CPIO of the
Cabinet Secretariat responded by claiming that the Right to Information Act,
2005 (for short „RTI Act‟) did not apply to the Cabinet Secretariat. EA-II
Section, since it was included in the Second Schedule appended to the RTI
Act. The view taken by the CPIO was also maintained by the first appellate
authority. Being aggrieved the respondent approached the Central
Information Commission (for short „CIC‟) by way of a second appeal.
Allowing the appeal the CIC inter alia held as under:
"4. During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated the same
arguments. It is a fact that the public authority from which the
information has been sought has been included in the second
schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act would apply to it. However, in terms of first proviso to
Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the
allegations of corruption and human rights violation will be
provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule
Caste alleged that the public authority has been extremely unfair to
him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion
for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons
thereby violating his human right. In the special circumstances, of
this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC
community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter
of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as
covered by the proviso to Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act and allow
the information to be disposed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to
provide to the Appellant the desired information within 10 working
days from the receipt of this order."
2. Being aggrieved from the order of the CIC, Directorate General of
Security, Office of Director, Aviation Research Centre and CPIO of the
Cabinet Secretariat are before this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. Section 24 of the RTI Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"24. Act not to apply to 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:"
4. A perusal of the Second Schedule which enumerates the intelligence
and security organisations established by the Central Government which are
in Section 24 of the Act would show that Aviation Research Centre is
included in the said list at serial No.7. Admittedly the respondent was
working in the Aviation Research Centre only. Therefore, the provisions of
the RTI Act would not apply to the aforesaid organisation except in the
matters relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The
information sought by the petitioner pertained to various DPCs held from
2000 to 2009 and such information is neither an information related to
allegations of corruption nor to human rights violation. No violation of
human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary
actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc. The
Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing supply of said
information to the respondent.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove the impugned order dated 29.3.2011
of the CIC is quashed. However, it is made clear that quashing of the
aforesaid order will not come in the way of the respondent availing of such
remedy as are open to him under the service law applicable to him or any
other law, for the time being in force, for ventilation of his grievance.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
