The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the disclosure of the proposal and all documents in the Department’s file regarding grant of sanction for prosecution u/s 45(1) of the UAP Act would stand exempted u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Facts
The petitioner had sought information by way of an application requiring the disclosure of the proposal and all documents in the Department’s file regarding issuance of the notification u/s 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act 1967 (“UAP Act”). This writ petition was preferred assailing the order passed therein by the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) upholding the view that disclosure of information would be exempt u/s 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).
Observations of the Court
Bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 45 of the UAP Act, the Bench opined that the disclosures that were sought and in the broad terms as were prayed for in the application, the respondents rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. So, the submission of learned counsel that the CIC was obliged to consider whether the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act would apply and that whether certain aspects of the information sought were “severable” and thus fall outside the scope of clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act was liable to be rejected since the petitioner had failed to establish what information that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification u/s 45 of the UAP Act would be severable.
Judgment
The Bench opined that the petition lacked merits and dismissed it accordingly.
Case: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs
Citation: W.P.(C) 391/2020
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma
Decided on: 8th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
