The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
August 08, 2017.
An appellant
sought information relating to implementation of an order relating to his pay-scale
and arrears for a couple of years. The CPIO refused under Section 24(1), Second
Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005, claiming that National
Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) is exempted from obligations under RTI
Act and they need not provide any such information. Initially, the Commission
directed it to provide information within 15 days.
Then the
Director (Establishment) informed him that they would intimate the amount due
if any in near future. The appellant said that by the order dated 1.4.2009, his
emoluments were revised but the public authority did not pay totally. There was
a partial payment in 2013 but Rs 41,000 is still due.
The
Commission directed the office of the NTRO, which is part of PMO, to inform the
applicant about the action taken on his application dated 25.01.2015, regarding
revision and payment of emoluments. The contention that exempted organisation
need not give any information is illegal, wrongful and absolutely baseless.
Even an
exempted organisation is under obligation to give salary-related information
that falls under the category of 4(1)(b) which needs to be voluntarily
disclosed. Part (x) of that section clearly includes: “(x) the monthly
remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the
system of compensation as provided in its regulations.”
The
information sought relates to governance, administration and management of
affairs concerning employees and if the public authority refuses to give
information regarding dues of payment to the employees, it becomes a matter of
possible corruption.
If the public
authority maintains secrecy about such information it will breed corruption.
Every government entity is statutorily required to conduct its business through
open, transparent processes to ensure that it is accountable to the citizenry.
This modern practice of open government is viewed as both a key feature and a
necessary condition of a contemporary democratic state. It is based upon the
conviction that the people can effectively exercise their constitutional role
as overseers of government action where their unfettered rights of access to
information about government operations are secure.
Regarding
Section 24 contentions, respondents have to understand that information sought
is not ‘security’ or ‘intelligence’ related information, but only about details
regarding his own pay, which is part of administrative decision-making-process
by the authority concerned , disclosure
of which would not harm anybody –nation, government or the organisation – while
its denial could prevent the appellant from exercising his right to challenge
the injustice.
The decision
of the respondent authority to deny information is illegal, and in serious
violation of appellant’s recognised human rights besides the RTI Act. It is stated in “Proviso to Section 24 that,
“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.”
In an earlier
case FAA, Addl DGP CID of Haryana v CIC CWP No. 12904/2009 decided by Mehinder
Singh Sullur J., on 27th Jan 2011, explained that all information sought not
concerned with security and intelligence shall be given. Justice Sullur said:
“A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only that information is
exempted, which is directly affecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and
“Security” of that organization of the State and not otherwise.”
The judgment
and order dated 13-10-2015 in W.P. (C) No. 880 of 2014 Abid Husssain v State of
Manipur High Court of Manipur observed: “… if any information sought for does
not relate to any of these areas referred to in the Preamble which the Act
seeks to protect and preserve and thus keep away from public domain but are
also relatable to any allegation of corruption and violence of human rights,
there is no reason why such an information should be withheld, if sought
for.” (Para 11)
The verdict
further observed that: “This issue can be viewed from another perspective. 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 RTI 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 bound of the public. For example, even though the Central
Bureau of Investigations is one of the organisations included in the Second
Schedule to the Act, it does not mean that all information relating to it are
out of bound 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 are any information which do 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. Para 12
The Manipur
High Court in W.P.(C) No. 642 of 2015 Sri Phairemban Sudhesh Singh v State of
Manipur, reiterated their decision about the scope of S 24. In this case, the
information sought for by the petitioner was regarding his service - the
initial appointment, suspension order, documents relating to departmental
proceedings, termination order etc. If the RTI Act is comprehended as a whole,
it means, information sought should be disclosed.”
In
Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of Directorate of Vigilance
& Anti Corruption v. R Karthikeyan W.P. No. 23507 and 23508 of 2009,
Division Bench, Madras High Court held on 12.1.2010 [AIR 2012 Mad 84] as under:
In terms of
Section 24(4), the State Government is empowered to notify in the Official
Gazette that nothing contained in the Right to Information Act shall apply to
such intelligence and security organization being organizations established by
the State Government. Nevertheless, in the light of the first proviso, such
power being conferred on the State Government to notify exempting such
intelligence and security organizations, it cannot notify in respect of the
information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights
violations.
As a
necessary corollary, the power to exempt from the provisions of the Act is not
available to the State Government even in case of intelligence and security
organizations in respect of the information pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations. .... As all these particulars (sought
by RTI applicant) would certainly relate to corruption, the Government Order
has no application to the facts of this case.
Thereafter,
the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the
writ petitions preferred by the Public Information Officer, the petitioner
herein in refusing to furnish the information.
Referring to
this order, the Madras High Court case stated that exempted organisation shall
comply with Section 4(1)(b)(v) in Superintendent of Police v. M. Kannappan, WP
No 805/2012, D Hariparandhaman, J of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras,
[2013(292) ELT 24 (Mad)]. Information claimed in this case is sanction for
prosecution relating to charges of corruption.
Information
pertains to corruption, disclosure of which will enable appellant to challenge
the validity of the order. This information does not relate to security or
intelligence aspects of the CBI. Hence CBI cannot refuse it under Section 24,
but has to give it under proviso to section 24. However it is subject to
section 8 of RTI Act.
The
Commission directed the authority to provide certified copies of the
information as sought within 15 days. The CIC issued show-cause notice for
illegal denial of information. (Based on decision in SVS Gahlot v. PIO,
National Technical Research Organisation, CIC/LS/A/2012/001368, on 25.7.2017)