Delhi High Court
PresidentâS Secretariat vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 31 January, 2018
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8393/2016 & CM No. 34715/2016
PRESIDENT‟S SECRETARIAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Khemka and Ms Nidhi
Bhuwania, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 31.01.2018
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,
impugning an order dated 11.05.2016 (hereafter „the impugned order‟)
passed by the Central Information Commissioner (hereafter „the CIC‟)
allowing the respondent‟s second appeal under Section 19(3) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter „the Act‟). The controversy
involved in the present petition relates to two queries raised by the
respondent in his application dated 16.04.2014 filed under the Act.
The said queries are reproduced below:-
"(4) Did President‟s Secretariat and/or others raise
security and/or others concerned on allowing
residential complex at the mentioned plot in
Diplomatic Enclave (New Delhi) as also referred in
enclosed new-reports and letters of Dr.
Subramanian swamy?
(5) Complete information on President‟s Secretariat
and/or others raising security and/or other concerns
as referred in query above, enclosing also copies of
all correspondence/file notings/documents in this
regard."
2. The Public Information Officer („PIO‟) of the petitioner
declined to provide any information as to the aforesaid queries and
responded that "the requested information cannot be shared as
organizations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 are involved".
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid response, the respondent preferred
an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter „the FAA‟),
under Section 19 of the Act. The said appeal was also rejected by an
order dated 03.06.2014, whereby the FAA held that "with regard to
query nos.4 & 5, the appellant is informed that his contention
regarding Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be applicable in
this case and the reply of CPIO, President's Secretariat is found to be
in order."
4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a Second
Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, which was allowed by the
impugned order.
5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the context
in which the respondent had sought the information under the Act. A
newspaper report captioned "Row heightens as Swamy seeks probe
into high-rise plan near Rashtrapati Bhavan" was published in a
national newspaper - The Hindu - on 05.03.2014.
6. The said report indicates that there were allegations that the
private company owned by M/s DLF had acquired a plot of land
measuring approximately 23 acres near the Rashtrapati Bhavan and
was proposing to build luxury apartments on the said plot. It was
reported that the said property had been sold for an amount, which
was allegedly less than the market price. It is further reported that
there were allegations that the promoters of the private company were
keen on increasing the current height of construction from the
permitted four storeys (30 metres to eight storeys), despite the
concerns of a possible security breach of the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
7. It was stated that initially permission to construct apartments on
the said plot had been denied but the matter was subsequently agitated
before a Division Bench of this Court and it was reported that this
Court had held that the master plan permits residential use of the land
and there were many other residential premises in the vicinity.
8. Mr Khemka, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
contended that a plain reading of the newspaper report indicated that
the issues sought to be raised were related to allegations of corruption
and therefore the information sought by the respondent fell outside the
scope of Section 24(1) of the Act.
9. Mr Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
it was an admitted case that President Secretariat had raised security
concerns. However, the said concerns could not be shared with the
respondent as it involved information received from the Intelligence
Bureau (IB), which was an organization listed in the Second Schedule
to the Act. He contended that in terms of Section 24(1) of the Act,
any information received from an organization listed in the Second
Schedule was outside the purview of the Act.
10. Mr Singh further contended that the allegation of corruption as
discernable from the newspaper report in question, only pertained to
sale of land below the market rate and did not relate to any security
concerns.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. A plain reading of the response of the PIO of the petitioner
indicates that he had even declined to provide the information (which
now Mr Singh states is admitted) that the President Secretariat had
raised concerns regarding allowing of residential complex as
mentioned in the newspaper report. Concededly, there was no
plausible reason for the PIO of the petitioner to have declined
providing this information in response to the information sought in
query no.4 (quoted above).
13. The next question that arises is whether further information
regarding the concerns raised by the petitioner could be shared with
the respondent.
14. It is seen that the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the
Act has limited application insofar as the petition is concerned. In
terms of Section 24(1) of the Act, information submitted by certain
intelligence and security organizations to the Government is exempt
from disclosure. Therefore, the petitioner could claim exemption only
with regard to information that it had received from a security
organization - in this case the IB - and not in respect of any other
information including the concerns raised by the President‟s
Secretariat.
15. It is also relevant to state that even the information, which a
Public Authority has received from security agencies is required to be
disclosed to an information seeker if it pertains to allegations of
corruption or violations of human rights.
16. In view of the above, the question that follows is whether the
information sought by the respondent pertains to allegations of
corruption.
17. It is seen that the impugned order does not reflect that this
aspect was considered by the CIC. The impugned order is bereft of
any reasoning as it merely states that the information is not exempt
under Section 24(1) of the Act.
18. It does not appear that the petitioner had advanced any
contention that the information regarding the security concerns did not
pertain to the allegations of corruption and perhaps this is the reason
why this issue has not been considered by the CIC.
19. In this view, the impugned order is set aside. The present
petition and the pending application are disposed of with the following
directions:-
a) The petitioner shall disclose the relevant information in
response to the query nos.4 & 5 as submitted by the respondent except
to the extent that such information has been received from
security/intelligence agencies as included in the second schedule to the
Act;
b) The CIC shall examine whether the information received by the
petitioner from security agencies pertains to allegations of corruption
as is contended by the respondent; and
c) The CIC shall pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of six months from today.
20. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JANUARY 31, 2018
MK
