Telangana High Court

Syed Ahmed vs State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 7534 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition challenges refusal of Respondents

2 and 3 - Deputy and Assistant Commissioners of Police to

furnish the information requested in RTI Application bearing

Dy.No.8/Nov/2023 dated 02.11.2023.

2. The case of petitioner - party-in-person is that by

way of RTI Application, he sought information with regard to the

list of persons on whom PD Act (Telangana Prevention of Boot

Legers Act, 1986) was imposed by the CP for period of 1 Jan

2022 to 31 Oct 2023. His grievance is that the 3rd respondent

refused to furnish the same by order dated 21-11-2023 taking

the plea of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act,2005 ('the

Act', for brevity). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is stated to have

preferred first appeal to the Additional DCP (Admin), Office of

Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad which was forwarded to the

2nd Respondent. The said Appeal was dismissed on 13-02-2024

on the same plea.

3. Drawing attention to Proviso to Section 24(4) of the

Act, petitioner submits that both the respondents committed an

error while disposing the RTI Application and First Appeal

respectively. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions held

that Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article

19(1) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the

person who has been detained under Preventive Detention Law

either made by the Parliament of India or the State Legislature,

his or her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are

violated. It is further submitted that detention orders are passed

by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad who is not listed in

the G.O.Ms.No.667, General Administration (GPM&AR) Dept,

dated 03-09-2007,

4. Learned Government Pleader for Information &

Technology, based on the averments in the counter-affidavit

filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCRB-cum-Public

Information Officer, Cyberabad Commissionerate, submits that

the information sought cannot be provided, as the same is the

subject matter of Special Branch (SB), which is exempted from

furnishing under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as per

G.O. Ms. No. 667, General Administration (GPM & AR)

Department, dated 03-09-2007. According to him, by virtue of

the powers vested under Section 24(4), the State Government

issued notification to the effect that provisions of said Act shall

not apply to the intelligence and Security organizations

established by the State Government including the Special

Branches (SB) subject to the conditions indicated in the

provisions there under, vide G.O.Ms. No. 667, General

Administration (GPM & AR) Dept., dated 03-09-2007. It is

submitted that the contention of petitioner that person who is

detained in prison due to Telangana PD Act, their human rights

and Article 21 are violated by the State Instrumentalities is not

correct and baseless, as detention orders are passed by the

Detaining Authorities i.e. Commissioners of Police/District

Collectors in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2)

of the Act 1 of 1986, duly following the well-established

procedure and in strict compliance with the mandatory

provisions under the said Act and also the safeguards as

contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution, hence the

question of violation of human rights does not arise.

In this regard, learned Government Pleader relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of

India Vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad dated 18.07.2019 in

Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2019.

5. Petitioner has come up with reply to the counter-

affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Placing reliance on Section

24(5), it is stated that every notification "shall" be laid before the

State Legislature, however, G.O.Ms.No. 667 dated 03.09.2007

was not laid before the State Legislature. In response to the RTI

Application dated 24.09.2024, it is stated that the said G.O. was

not laid before the State legislature of Andhra Pradesh and no

entries were recorded in Inward & Outward register, hence, the

same is non-est. He has drawn attention of this Court to few

relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in the context of

non-application of mind while passing detention order in a

mechanical manner. They are Ameena Begum vs. The State

of Telangana 1, Ram v. The State Of Telangana 2; Nenavath

Bujji v The State of Telangana 3. He submits that though

G.O. Ms. No. 667 was issued on 03.09.2007 exempting certain

organisations including Special Branch (which maintains the

data regarding the preventive detention) from preview of RTI Act,

it is established procedure that when any detention order is

passed by the authorities, the government necessarily have to

issue a G.O. and the same must be uploaded on the website.

Regrettably, the government despite the explicit directions of

this Court to upload the government orders within one day, is

now resorting to unfair means by contending that the

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 958

[2022] 3 S.C.R. 5

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1181

information pertains to Special Branch and the same cannot be

uploaded.

6. As is evident from the material available on record,

the list of persons on whom PD Act was imposed by the

Commissioner of Police during the period 1st January 2022 to

October 2023 was not provided to petitioner by Respondents 2

and 3. Petitioner's case is that though Section 24(4) states that

intelligence organisations are exempted from furnishing

information, as per Proviso, where the information relates to the

allegations of human rights and corruption, then the

information shall be furnished. According to petitioner, right to

information is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article

19(1) and the human rights of the person detained in prison due

to Telangana PD Act guaranteed under Article 21 are allegedly

violated by the State instrumentalities, hence, information

sought is to be furnished. However, the Public Information

officer, ACP, CCRB, Cyberabad informed that the information

cannot be provided, as the same is subject matter of Special

Branch (SB) which is exempted from furnishing under Section

24(4) of the Act as per G.O.Ms.No. 667, dated 30.09.2007.

7. In this context, it is to be noted that admittedly,

Section 24 of the Act provides immunity to certain organisations

set up by the State Government. For better appreciation of the

matter, it is pertinent to extract Section 24(4) as under:

" 24(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organization being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

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 State 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. By virtue of the powers vested under Section 24(4)

of the Act, the State Government issued Notification vide

G.O.Ms.No. 667, dated 03.09.2007, to the effect that the

provisions of the said Act shall not apply to the intelligence and

security organisations established by the State Government

including the Special Branches like State Intelligence

Department and its Special Intelligence Branch, State Security

Wing, State Greyhounds Organisation, All District Special

Branches under the control of Superintendents of Police, all

Security Units in the Districts under the Superintendents of

Police, APSP, SPF, SARCPL, etcetera. Since the data sought

comes under Special Branch, the same is not liable to be

furnished. Further, it is to be seen, as contended by the

respondents, detention orders were passed by the

Commissioners of Police / District Collectors duly following the

well-established procedure and in strict compliance with the

mandatory provisions under the said Act and also the

safeguards as contemplated under Article 22 of the

Constitution. In Dimple Happy Dhakad's case, relied on by

learned Government Pleader, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that:

"Insofar as the contention that the courts should lean in favour of upholding the personal liberty, we are conscious that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are very zealous of upholding the personal liberty of an individual. But the liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people. Order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and devised to afford protection to the society. When the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society." Hence, question of violation of Human rights does not arise in Preventive Detention cases. If the aggrieved party/detenu feels of violation of Human Rights under Article 21, he/she may have approach the appropriate forums including the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Courts and seek justice."

9. Though petitioner relied on the judgments referred

to supra, to submit that detention orders are passed by the

authorities in a mechanical manner which ultimately amounts

to gross human rights violation, in view of the facts stated and

in view of the judgment extracted supra, this Court is of the

view that there is no violation of 'Human Rights' as contended

by petitioner. Therefore, the information sought need not be

furnished to petitioner.

10. Further, according to petitioner, when any

detention order is passed by the authorities, the government

necessarily have to issue a G.O. and the same must be

uploaded on the website, but, it appears, no such G.O. was

uploaded. He brought to the notice of this Court the order dated

18.08.2021 in W.P. PIL No. 93 of 2021, in support of the said

contention. The said judgment reads as under:

" In view of the fact that a scheme has been framed and placed before the legislative Assembly and we are informed that the same has been cleared. There is no good reason to entertain the present petition. However. In view of the grievance raised by the petitioner that the State Government has not been uploading the relevant G.Os for public-consumption and dissemination of information. It is deemed appropriate to direct that every Department of the State Government shall upload the G.Os issued by it, from time to time, on its website, preferably within one day of issuing the same, for the information of public at large."

11. If petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the said

aspect, it is open for him to question the same in accordance

with law but not in this Writ Petition which was filed seeking a

direction to furnish the information as requested under the

Right to Information Act.

12. For all the reasons stated supra, the Writ Petition is

liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J