Bar
& Bench: New Delhi: Sunday, January 20, 2019.
The
Delhi High Court has held that information regarding allegations of corruption
and human rights violations in respect of Section 24(1) of the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act), need not be mandatorily disclosed by the concerned
authorities under the Act, if the information is struck by Section 8 of the
Act.
Section
24(1) excludes intelligence and security organisations from the application of
the Act, however the proviso to the Section carves out an exemption in case of
information in respect of allegations of violation of human rights or
corruption. Section 8 of the Act grants exemption from disclosure to certain
categories of information such as information received in confidence from
foreign government, etc.
Therefore,
before sharing such information which is in possession of intelligence
agencies, the concerned authority would have to determine its feasibility in
terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act, the Court has stated.
The
judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a
petition preferred by a person convicted by Special Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) Court in relation to the Mumbai Train Blast case of
July 2006.
The
petitioner claimed that during investigation by various agencies, it was
revealed that members of the Indian Mujahideen were involved in the case and
that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had collected information about their
involvement. The IB then prepared a report, which was placed before the Home
Minister in the year 2009. It was
submitted that the said report suggested a review of the evidence in the case
and indicated that the Indian Mujahideen, and not the petitioner, was
responsible for the blasts.
The
petitioner therefore filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act
before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Intelligence Bureau,
seeking a true copy of the IB report. The application was rejected by the
concerned CPIO on the ground that by virtue of Section 24(1), the IB is
excluded from the purview of the RTI Act.
Aggrieved
by the reply, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act
before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). In his appeal, the petitioner claimed
that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act was inapplicable in the present case, as the
information being sought fell within one of the exceptions carved out under
Section 24(1) of the Act, i.e allegation of violation of human rights.
The
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and turned down petitioner’s request on the
same ground. The second appeal before the Central Information Commission under
Section 19(3) of the Act was also rejected.
The
Commission held that the information sought by the petitioner did not relate to
either the two exceptions in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act, i.e.
allegations of human rights violation or corruption.
Aggrieved
by the order, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court.
Holding
that the CIC’s conclusion was erroneous, the Court held that there could be
“little doubt” that the petitioner’s application seeking the IB Report
pertained to an allegation of human rights violation.
“There
can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty. It is
the petitioner’s case that he is deprived of his liberty on the basis of false
evidence and the information available in the report placed before the Home
Minister would indicate the same”, the Court observed.
Since
the expression “human rights” is not defined in the RTI Act, the Court stated
that the same could be understood in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 or the Universal Declaration of Human of 1948.
The
Court then clarified that any information in terms of the second proviso to
Section 24(1) of the Act, can be provided to the petitioner only on the
approval of the CIC after examining if such information is “relevant and
material”.
If
the CIC, on examination of the material, finds that it is not so, the approval
for disclosure of such information would not be granted, it stated.
The
Court further iterated that before disclosing such exempted information in
terms of proviso to Section 24(1), the concerned authority must be ascertain
whether or not the disclosure would be hit by the protection under Section 8 of
the Act.
“..it
is also necessary to observe that merely because such information regarding
allegations of corruption and human rights violation is not excluded from the
purview of Section 24(1) of the Act, does not necessarily mean that the said
information is require to be disclosed…
…Section
8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information
and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining
to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned
authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the
petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of
the RTI Act.”
The
Court thus decreed,
“In
view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded
to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this
order. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
The
petitioner was represented by Advocate Arpit Bhargava. IB was represented by
Advocates Rahul Sharma and CK Bhatt.
.JPG)
.JPG)
