Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Sunday, 4th Feb 2024.
The High Court held that proviso to Section 24 of RTI Act is applicable to CBI and its purpose is to provide information on human rights violations and corruption.
The Delhi High Court
recently held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not completely
exempt from the purview of Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and the central
agency has to provide information related to corruption and human rights violation
when such a request is raised under the Act [Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO) Central Bureau of Investigation v Sanjeev Chaturvedi].
In an order pronounced on January 30, the Court said that even though CBI is listed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act (organisations exempt from RTI Act), it does not mean that the entire Act is not applicable to such organisations.
Proviso to Section 24 permits information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation to be made available to the applicant and the same cannot be included in the exception provided to organizations mentioned in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, the Court observed.
"The very purpose of the proviso is to permit information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations to be provided to the applicant," Justice Subramonium Prasad held.
The Court, therefore, ordered CBI to provide information to whistleblower, Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi regarding allegations of corruption in Delhi's All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
Chaturvedi was the Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS when he flagged that there was corruption in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS.
Among other details, Chaturvedi sought certified copy of file noting/documents/correspondences related to the investigation done by the CBI.
While the information was initially denied by the CBI, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the agency to provide the details.
The CBI then approached the High Court against CIC order dated November 25, 2019.
The federal agency argued that Section 24 of the RTI Act acts as a complete bar and CBI is exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act. It contended that proviso to Section 24 is not applicable to CBI and the agency cannot cannot reveal the investigations done by it.
Justice Prasad rejected the arguments and held that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that investigation regarding malpractices in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution in AIIMS will expose the CBI officers and other persons involved in the investigation or endanger their life.
This Court is not in a position to accept the argument of the CBI in the facts of this case, the Court said.
"The Respondent [Chaturvedi] has levelled allegations regarding corruption in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution at JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi and this case, therefore, does not deal with any kind of sensitive investigation," the single-judge concluded.
However, it clarified that in appropriate cases, it is always open for the CBI to establish that the information sought regarding a particular investigation is sensitive in nature.
"On considering the nature of sensitivity involved and keeping in mind the object of Section 24 of the RTI Act and keeping in mind the purpose for which Section 24 was brought in the statute book, it is always open for the CPIO to refuse grant of such information," the Court said.
CBI was represented through its Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam S Sharma along with advocates Prakarsh Airan, Abhishek Batra, Ripu Daman Sharma, Vashisht Rao, Syamantak Modgill and Harpreet Kalsi.
Advocates Manoj Khanna, Shweta Sharma and Abhishek Chandel appeared for Sanjeev Chaturvedi.
(Click Here to Read Order)
The High Court held that proviso to Section 24 of RTI Act is applicable to CBI and its purpose is to provide information on human rights violations and corruption.
In an order pronounced on January 30, the Court said that even though CBI is listed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act (organisations exempt from RTI Act), it does not mean that the entire Act is not applicable to such organisations.
Proviso to Section 24 permits information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation to be made available to the applicant and the same cannot be included in the exception provided to organizations mentioned in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, the Court observed.
"The very purpose of the proviso is to permit information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations to be provided to the applicant," Justice Subramonium Prasad held.
The Court, therefore, ordered CBI to provide information to whistleblower, Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi regarding allegations of corruption in Delhi's All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
Chaturvedi was the Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS when he flagged that there was corruption in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS.
Among other details, Chaturvedi sought certified copy of file noting/documents/correspondences related to the investigation done by the CBI.
While the information was initially denied by the CBI, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the agency to provide the details.
The CBI then approached the High Court against CIC order dated November 25, 2019.
The federal agency argued that Section 24 of the RTI Act acts as a complete bar and CBI is exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act. It contended that proviso to Section 24 is not applicable to CBI and the agency cannot cannot reveal the investigations done by it.
Justice Prasad rejected the arguments and held that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that investigation regarding malpractices in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution in AIIMS will expose the CBI officers and other persons involved in the investigation or endanger their life.
This Court is not in a position to accept the argument of the CBI in the facts of this case, the Court said.
"The Respondent [Chaturvedi] has levelled allegations regarding corruption in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution at JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi and this case, therefore, does not deal with any kind of sensitive investigation," the single-judge concluded.
However, it clarified that in appropriate cases, it is always open for the CBI to establish that the information sought regarding a particular investigation is sensitive in nature.
"On considering the nature of sensitivity involved and keeping in mind the object of Section 24 of the RTI Act and keeping in mind the purpose for which Section 24 was brought in the statute book, it is always open for the CPIO to refuse grant of such information," the Court said.
CBI was represented through its Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam S Sharma along with advocates Prakarsh Airan, Abhishek Batra, Ripu Daman Sharma, Vashisht Rao, Syamantak Modgill and Harpreet Kalsi.
Advocates Manoj Khanna, Shweta Sharma and Abhishek Chandel appeared for Sanjeev Chaturvedi.
(Click Here to Read Order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
