Delhi High Court
Cpio Cbi vs Cj Karira on 7 September, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7439/2012
CPIO CBI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate for
CBI.
versus
CJ KARIRA ..... Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 07.09.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated
31.10.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'CIC')
whereby CIC had directed the petitioner to provide the information as
sought by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Central Bureau of Investigation
(hereafter 'CBI') is included in the second schedule to the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') and, by virtue of section 24(1) of
the Act, is exempt from the purview of the Act.
3. The respondent disputes the above contention and claims that, by
virtue of the proviso to section 24(1) of the Act, the information sought by
him is not exempt from disclosure. The petitioner controverts the aforesaid
contention and contends that the information sought by the petitioner does
not fall within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act.
4. In view of the above, the only controversy to be addressed is whether
the information sought by the petitioner falls within the proviso to Section
24(1) of the Act.
5. The respondent had filed an application dated 31.01.2012 with the
petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following information for the period
January 2007 to December 2011.
"1. All the Ministries / Departments of the Government of
India.
2. Union Public Service Commission/Lok Sabha
Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/Cabinet
Secretariat/Central Vigilance Commission/ President's
Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Prima Minister's
Office/Planning Commission/Election Commission.
3. Central Information Commission/State Information
Commissions
4. Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, New Delhi
5. Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
6. All Officers/Desks/Sections, Department of Personnel &
Training and Department of Pension & Pensions
Welfare"
6. The petitioner had responded to the aforesaid request by a letter dated
05.03.2012 claiming that CBI was included within the second schedule to
the Act and, thus, in terms of section 24(1) of the Act was excluded from the
applicability of the Act.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section
24(1) of the Act, which is set out below:-
"24. 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."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the first proviso to Section
24(1) of the Act that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and
human rights violation are not excluded from the purview. The petitioner
contended that since the information sought related to allegations of
corruption, the same were not excluded from the scope of Section 24(1) of
the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had countered the aforesaid
contention and submitted that the proviso must be read in a restricted
manner and, only information pertaining to allegations of corruption relating
to the public authority - in this case CBI - was excluded from the purview of
Section 24(1) of the Act. It was contended that since the information sought
by the respondent pertain to allegations of corruption in other organisations,
the first proviso would be inapplicable and, the petitioner would not be
obliged to disclose the same.
10. The aforesaid question is squarely covered by the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi: W.P.(C) 5521/2016, decided on 23.08.2017, whereby this
Court has held as under:-
"29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion
is applicable with regard to any information. The term "any
information" would include within its ambit all kinds of
information. The proviso becomes applicable if the
information pertains to allegations of corruption and human
rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional
on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and
security organizations. If the information sought, furnished by
the exempt intelligence and security organizations, pertains to
allegations of corruption and human rights violation, it would
be exempt from the exclusion clause.
30. The proviso "Provided that the information pertaining to
the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall
not be excluded under this sub-section" has to be read in the
light of the preceding phrase "or any information furnished by
such organisations to that Government".
31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn
is that, if the information sought pertains to allegation of
corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from
the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the
information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security
organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the
Intelligence Bureau or not."
11. The respondent who is present in Court states that the information
sought by him has become stale and, he be permitted to file a fresh
application under the Act. Plainly, the respondent is not precluded from
filing an application before the petitioner for information relating to
allegations of corruption or human rights violation. In the event such
application is filed, the petitioner would examine the same. Although, it
would not be open for the petitioner to claim that information relating to
allegations of corruption in other organisation is exempt from disclosure,
however, the petitioner would be at liberty to examine whether the
information sought by the petitioner is exempt under any of the clauses of
Section 8(1) of the Act.
12. The CIC had also awarded cost of ₹153/- to the petitioner, which the
petitioner has not been paid as yet. The petitioner is directed to pay the sum
alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.10.2012 till the date
of payment. Such payment as directed be paid within a period of four weeks
from today.
13. The petition is disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
RK
