The Hans India: Manipur: Tuesday,
May 03, 2016.
The Manipur
High Court in Abid Hussain v State of Manipur, W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2014 decided
on 13.10.2015 by Justice Kotiswar Singh made a very fine analysis of
information that could be given or withheld by the organisations exempted under
Section 24.
It is a
comprehensive judgment relating public interest aspects in Preamble to Section
24 and discussing the impact of proviso in Section 24 and also exceptions under
Section 8. It presents the issue in a complete perspective.
A Hussain
sought information about the recruitment process of Sub-Inspector of Police in
the State of Manipur. The Manipur government issued a notification, exempting
the Department of Police from the RTI Act, as per its Section 24. Hence, the police denied the information
about recruitment process.
The case
reached the High Court of Manipur [W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2014] wherein the
question considered was whether the petitioner was entitled to that information
when the Police Department had been exempted as per the Section 24 and whether
there was any allegation pertaining to corruption and violence of human rights
had been made by him.
Preamble
perspective: The High Court looked at it from the Preamble of RTI perspective.
It said: The exclusion of some under Section 24 is to ensure efficient
functioning and operations of the government, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and as such
other public interest and to protect such other public interest as clearly
mentioned in the Preamble to the Act.
Expression
“information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violence”
is of too general and of wide amplitude.
A balanced and reasonable interpretation of this expression can be done
by referring to the Preamble.
In the
context of the Preamble, the Section 24 exemption was to protect certain public
interests including efficient operations of government, optimum use of limited
resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.
….If any
information sought for does not relate to any of these areas referred to in the
Preamble but are also relatable to any allegation of corruption and violence of
human rights, there is no reason why such information should be withheld, if
sought for, the Manipur HC explained.
Sensitive
information perspective: Having said this, the High Court looked at the issue
from a different perspective, saying: The legislature in their anxiety to keep
certain organisations which are engaged in activities involving sensitive
information, secrecy of the State,
have sought
to keep these organisations away from the purview of the Act by including such
organisations in the Second Schedule of the Act as far as Central organisations
are concerned and in the official gazette in respect of State
organisations. It does not, however,
mean that all information relating to these organisations are completely out of
bounds of the public.
The Manipur
High Court gave an example: “…even
though the Central Bureau of Investigation is one of the organisations included
in the Second Schedule to the Act, it does not mean that all information
relating to it is out of bounds of the public.
If one looks
at the website of the Central Bureau of Investigation which is in the public
domain, there are so many information about the organisation which are already
voluntarily made open to the public. This is for the simple reason that
disclosure of these information does not in any way compromise with the
integrity of the organisation or confidentiality of the sensitive nature of
works undertaken by this organisation.
The purpose
of excluding all these organisations from the purview of the Act as provided
under Section 24 is to merely protect and ensure the confidentiality of the
sensitive works and activities undertaken by these organisations. Therefore, if
there is any information which does not impinge upon the confidentiality of the
sensitive activities of the organisation and if such information is also
relatable to the issues of corruption or violation of human rights, disclosure
of such information cannot be withheld.
Similarly, in
respect of the police organisations in the State of Manipur, if anybody seeks
any information which does not touch upon any of the sensitive and confidential
activities undertaken by the police department, and, if the said information
also can be related to the issues of any allegation of corruption or violation
of human rights, such information cannot be withheld.”
It further
held: “Therefore, if there be any information which does not relate to the
principal or the core function of the organisation which is sought to be
protected by including in Section 24 of the Act, but if it can have some
reference or relatable to corruption or violation of human rights, such an
information cannot be withheld.
It may be
observed that the core function of the police organisation is to maintain law
and order, security of the State and discharge such activities which are
related to and ancillary to these functions. In that context, undertaking the
exercise of a recruitment process is not part of the core function of the
police department.
It is some
function which could be outsourced to any other agency like the Public Service
Commission etc. and this activity does not form part of the core function of
the Police Department which cannot be outsourced to any other agency. Of
course, recruitment of intelligence officials may form part of the core
function. But in the present case, such is not the case. The recruitment in
issue is the general recruitment process of the personnel of the police
department generally.”
Exceptions
under Section 8: Even if any information sought for comes under any of the
clauses mentioned in Section 8 of the Act, the authority can withheld such
information. Disclosure of the marks obtained by a candidate in a recruitment
process cannot be said to be hit by any of the clauses mentioned in the Section
8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The HC
concluded: “The information sought (about recruitment process of sub-inspector)
will not be covered by any of the inhibiting factors mentioned in Section 8 of
the Act, nor impinge upon the core activity of the Manipur Police Organisation
and if furnished would rule out any allegation of corruption, hence is
“pertaining to allegations of corruption”. Hence it cannot be withheld.
Recruitment information was finally directed to be given.
From this
fine analysis of Manipur High Court Judgment, the inferences that can be drawn
are: 1. The public interest aspects mentioned in Preamble are ensured by
Section 24; 2. Information about allegations pertaining to corruption and human
rights violation is exempted from Section 24.
Such
information has to be given by organisations exempted under the Section 24
also; 3. If information sought relates to aspects mentioned preamble, but about
allegation of corruption and human rights allegations, it can be given; 4. Organisations
which are engaged in activities involving sensitive information, secrecy of the
State, have sought to be out of purview of RTI as per s 24.
If
information sought relates to this core area of functioning, it can be
withheld, and if not, it can be given; 5. Though the information sought is
relating to this core area but it pertains to allegations of corruption and
human rights violation, it can be given; and 6. If the information sought
referred to above is hit by any exceptions under Section 8, it cannot be given.