Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Friday, 14 April 2023.
While refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court judgment, the Court kept the question of law open.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it did not approve of the reasoning behind a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act apply to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. [Union of India v. Central Information Commission and Anr]
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, while refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court verdict, chose to keep the question of law open.
"...it is observed that we do not approve the reasoning given by the High Court. However...we refuse to entertain the present Special Leave Petition, keeping the question of law open."
The High Court verdict had stated that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic view, and that non-supply of documents related to a person’s promotions would amount to a human rights violation.
It had noted that the respondent before it had not been seeking information about any investigation or intelligence or covert operations carried out nationally or internationally.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government before the Supreme Court, pointed out that Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts intelligence and security organisations from Act.
"The information can be obtained but not under RTI."
Justice Shah then asked what was secret about service records, and how the same could be made exempt.
"Transfer records for security agencies and their inputs may not be shared. Please keep the question of law open. I will share the individual service records. Suppose, the Intelligence Bureau's information is being sought and one of the officers has a compromised record...This does not come under human rights", the SG explained.
The High Court's verdict had come in an appeal filed by the ED challenging an order of a single-judge passed on December 7, 2018.
The single-judge refused to stay an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed the ED to provide documents related to the seniority list of lower divisional clerks (LDCs) from 1991 till date.
The agency had been directed to provide copies of the proposal for promotion of the respondent LDC placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) along with copies of minutes of meetings and a copy of the promotion/rejection order issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.
The Division Bench, while issuing notice in the ED's challenge, had refused to stay the order.
The agency had then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which had disposed of the petition in October 2021 with a direction to the High Court to decide the matter with respect to applicability of the RTI Act to the ED.
The top court' order indicated that the records sought in the matter can be shared and were not exempt under the RTI Act.
While refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court judgment, the Court kept the question of law open.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it did not approve of the reasoning behind a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act apply to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. [Union of India v. Central Information Commission and Anr]
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, while refusing to entertain the Central government's appeal against the High Court verdict, chose to keep the question of law open.
"...it is observed that we do not approve the reasoning given by the High Court. However...we refuse to entertain the present Special Leave Petition, keeping the question of law open."
The High Court verdict had stated that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic view, and that non-supply of documents related to a person’s promotions would amount to a human rights violation.
It had noted that the respondent before it had not been seeking information about any investigation or intelligence or covert operations carried out nationally or internationally.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government before the Supreme Court, pointed out that Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts intelligence and security organisations from Act.
"The information can be obtained but not under RTI."
Justice Shah then asked what was secret about service records, and how the same could be made exempt.
"Transfer records for security agencies and their inputs may not be shared. Please keep the question of law open. I will share the individual service records. Suppose, the Intelligence Bureau's information is being sought and one of the officers has a compromised record...This does not come under human rights", the SG explained.
The High Court's verdict had come in an appeal filed by the ED challenging an order of a single-judge passed on December 7, 2018.
The single-judge refused to stay an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed the ED to provide documents related to the seniority list of lower divisional clerks (LDCs) from 1991 till date.
The agency had been directed to provide copies of the proposal for promotion of the respondent LDC placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) along with copies of minutes of meetings and a copy of the promotion/rejection order issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.
The Division Bench, while issuing notice in the ED's challenge, had refused to stay the order.
The agency had then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which had disposed of the petition in October 2021 with a direction to the High Court to decide the matter with respect to applicability of the RTI Act to the ED.
The top court' order indicated that the records sought in the matter can be shared and were not exempt under the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
