THE WEEK:
New Delhi: Monday, September 02, 2019.
The
Central Information Commission has directed the CBI to explain how disclosure
of expenses incurred on the extradition of Vijay Mallya will hamper his pending
apprehension and prosecution.
The
Central Bureau of Investigation had refused to share the information under the
RTI Act about legal and other expenses incurred on Mallya's extradition from
the United Kingdom where he had escaped in 2016 after the agency diluted a look
out circular against him in 2015.
Mallya
is contesting his extradition in the UK courts.
Through
his RTI application, Pune-based activist Vihar Durve had sought information
from the CBI on six points including total legal expenditure and consultation
fees (in India and abroad); total travelling expenditure; names of lawyers to
whom fee were paid by the government to extradite Mallya.
The agency tried to shield itself from
disclosure citing exemption given to it from the RTI under Section 24 and
Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
The
Section 24 exempts security and intelligence organisations listed in the second
schedule including the CBI from "anything" contained in the RTI Act.
However,
the proviso in the Section says disclosure of any material in any form held by
the organisation pertaining to "allegations" of corruption and human
rights violation is to decided on the basis of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The
Delhi High Court has ruled that "allegations" need not be against the
officials of the agency exempted from the RTI Act.
The
proviso implies that decision of disclosure of allegations of corruption has to
be taken on the basis of provisions of the RTI Act which had exemption clauses
allowing an organisation to withhold information if it meets the given
criteria.
Section
8(1)(h) allows an organisation to withhold information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The
Delhi High Court has said when an organisation cited the Section to deny
information they must give reasons to justify as disclosure is norm while
exemption is an exception.
When
the matter reached the CIC, highest adjudicating body on RTI matters, the CBI
cited Section 24 and Section 8(1)(h) saying adjudication in cases against Mallya
is still pending hence information cannot be disclosed.
Durve
strongly contested the arguments of the agency saying CPIO has wrongly invoked
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without justifying as to how the information
sought in the present RTI application shall impede the process of investigation
or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
He
further stated that the information sought pertains to corruption since Mallya
has been involved in corrupt practices as well as duped banks to the tune of Rs
9,000 crore.
"Commission
observes that the Rep. of CPIO has raised a new issue of exemption under
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act during hearing. Commission directs him to send a
written submission highlighting the factum as to how the information sought in
the instant RTI Application is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act...,"
Sinha said. PTI ABS RHL
.JPG)
.JPG)
