The Hans India: Hayderabad: Tuesday,
May 10, 2016.
Even police,
vigilance and security organisations, though exempted from RTI, have a duty to
give all that information that helps in exposing corruption and violation of
human rights.
To comprehend
the intent of the Legislature while enacting the RTI Act specially as regards
the said expression, the provisions of the Act, as a whole, are to be read
keeping in mind the purpose for which the RTI Act is enacted and it may further
be noted that the exemptions cannot be construed so as to defeat the very
objective sought to be achieved in the RTI Act, 2005.
A High Court
also held that any information which does not touch upon any of the sensitive
and confidential activities undertaken by the police department, Government of
Manipur, cannot be withheld at all.
A police
officer Phairemban Sudhesh Singh wanted to know about his service details like
initial appointment, suspension order, documents relating to departmental
proceedings, termination order etc.
The Manipur
State Police denied this information as they are exempted under the Section 24
of RTI Act. The case reached the Manipur High Court.
The question
was whether the organisation exempted from RTI can still be under an obligation
to provide service details, or should they reject every information request
en-bloc? Whether service-related information could be treated as ‘information
pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violation?’
The Manipur
High Court made a comprehensive analysis of the issue in Sri Phairemban Sudhesh
Singh v State of Manipur W.P.(C) No. 642 of 2015. First of all, it explained
the objective of RTI Act.
There can be
no dispute that the RTI Act, 2005, is enacted with the avowed objective of
conferring a statutory right on the citizens in India to have access to
government-controlled information or to seek information from Central
government/State governments, local bodies and other competent authorities as a
matter of right.
The idea is
that it would prove to be instrumental in bringing in transparency and
accountability in government and public institutions which would help in
checking the growth of corruption. The scope of the Act is wide enough to cover
all the Constitutional institutions and subject to exemptions, universally
applies to all Public Authorities.
The Section 3
gives statutory recognition to the right to information subject to the other
provisions of the Act. Section 8 sets out limitations on the right of access as
exemptions from disclosure of information.
Facet of
freedom of speech
The Section
24(4) confers power on the State government to exempt any intelligence and
security organisation established by it from the purview of the provisions. The
Manipur High Court firmly said that the right to information is a facet of
“freedom of speech and expression,” as contained in the Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution, which are the foundation of all democratic organisations.
Fundamental
rights should not be cut down by too restricted an approach. Even prior to the
enactment of RTI Act, 2005, the expression “freedom of speech and expression”
has been construed by the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, to include
not only liberty to propagate one’s views, ideas, opinions and thoughts but
also the right to acquire information.
In other
words, the right to information can be said to be a fundamental right subject
to the exemptions as contained in Section 8 and 24 of the RTI Act.
The Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, provides that everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Act to be
read as a whole
To comprehend
the intent of the Legislature while enacting the RTI Act specially as regards
the said expression, the provisions of the Act, as a whole, are to be read
keeping in mind the purpose for which the RTI Act is enacted and it may further
be noted that the exemptions cannot be construed so as to defeat the very
objective sought to be achieved in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Manipur
High Court reiterated in Md. AbidHussain Vs. State of Manipur, W.P. (C) No. 880
of 2014 that any information which does not touch upon any of the sensitive and
confidential activities undertaken by the police department, Government of
Manipur, cannot be withheld at all. In other words, access to such information
cannot be denied to the citizens. It has directed the disclosure of the
information sought.
In another
case, a citizen in Chennai sought for information regarding the number of
police officials who were caught during the raid by DVAC together with the list
of names, the designation and the address of officials, along with the amount
recovered from each officials as well as the details of departmental action
taken against each officials, the details
of prosecution launched against the officials under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the status of such prosecution against each officials and
whether the persons whose names are furnished were reinstated in service and if
so, the date on which they had rejoined service as well as the details of list
of action taken by the department to prevent corruption at police
station/branches/wings in Chennai city.
In
Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of Directorate of Vigilance
&Anti Corruption v. R Karthikeyan, W.P. No. 23507 and 23508 of 2009, the
Division Bench of Madras High Court held on 12.1.2010 [AIR 2012 Mad 84], the
Information Commission, directed to furnish the information.
The Madras
High Court did not accept the contention of State in writ petition and held
that in the event the information required by an applicant relates to the
allegations of corruption, the said department cannot claim the exemption from
furnishing those particulars relating to corruption. The Madras High Court
further held:
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 organisation being organisations 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
organisations 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.
Manual is
not secret document
Exemption
organisations also need to give certain information under the Section 4. The
Madras High Court stated that exempted organization shall comply with Section
4(1)(b)(v). In Superintendent of Police v. M. Kannappan, WP No 805/2012, D
Hariparandhaman, J held on 28.12.2012, [2013(292) ELT 24 (Mad)] that a copy of
the Vigilance Manual of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is
“information pertaining to corruption” and thus shall be shared. The Madras
High Court explained:
The manual
cannot be kept as a secret document. It is nothing but a set of rules as to how
the DVAC is functioning. I am not able to understand as to why the DVAC feels
shy to furnish the manual. ...Likewise, the public authorities shall maintain
the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records for discharging their
functions as contemplated under Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the RTI Act.
Section 2 (f)
"information"' means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders
logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in
any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
On a
cumulative reading of Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b)(v), 8 of along with provisos to
Section 24(4), High Court viewed that the manual of DVAC need to be shared.
.JPG)
.JPG)
