Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved by the order passed by Central Information Commission, which upheld Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) decision, whereby the information sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) was denied, Subramonium Prasad, J.* opined that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation, and, if the copy of entire report of CBI, fell into the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
Background
In the instant case, the petitioner was a retired officer of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service. Further, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) was investigating a case related to irregularities in the National Spot Exchange Limited (‘NSEL’), where the petitioner was working as Deputy Secretary on deputation with Department of Consumer Affairs.
The petitioner was examined by the CBI and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). It was later revealed that the CBI recommended action against few officers in its report in July, 2015.
On 04-04-2016, a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner stating that the petitioner acted in perfunctory manner by facilitating the appointment of Forward Market Commission (‘FMC’) as a designated agency to oversee the functioning of the commodity spot exchanges. It was also stated that the petitioner’s action amounted to showing undue favour to the NSEL by concealing from Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) that NSEL had falsely claimed before the RBI that it was under regulatory control and the petitioner was also submitting monthly reports to ensure that NSEL remained out of the purview of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
The show-cause notice further indicated that the petitioner had shown undue favour to the NSEL by participating in the act of relaxing and diluting of the draft forwarded by FMC for appointment as designated agency to oversee the functioning of the commodity spot exchanges. These actions of the petitioner had resulted in the FMC being appointed, despite not being sufficiently empowered to take effective action against the spot exchange.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the RTI Act’) and sought for a copy of the report of the CBI given in July, 2015, along with the copies of notings at various levels in the Department of Economic Affairs in connection with the processing of the CBI report, the Action Taken Report (ATR). The petitioner further sought the comments of the Central Vigilance Commissioner on the ATR, the copies of notes and correspondence and the final orders passed by the Ministry of Finance on the action proposed by CBI against the officers of FMC.
On 03-06-2016, the information sought by the petitioner was denied by CPIO on the ground that these documents were exempted from under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It was also stated that the CBI was an organisation exempted from the operation of the RTI under Section 24 of the RTI Act, therefore, information sought for by the petitioner could not be provided.
Thus, this order was challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted the various documents sought by the petitioner and opined that the information sought by the petitioner would impede the investigation conducted by the CBI involving a large-scale fraud which included many accused persons. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation. And, if the copy of entire report of CBI, fell into the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process.
To satisfy its conscience that the petitioner’s rights along with the principles of natural justice were not being prejudiced and whether lack of this information would have negatively impacted the petitioner in making an effective reply to the allegations made in the show-cause notice, the Court upon perusal of the show-cause notice opined that for conducting a departmental inquiry, the answers to the petitioner’s action was called upon and looking into the CBI report would not be very relevant in answering the issues raised in show-cause notice against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
[Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6311, decided on 05-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vidya Sagar and Amolak, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Rahul Sharma, CGSC with Ayush Bhatt, Advocates; Anil Soni, CGSC with Devvrat Yadav, Advocates; S. W. Haider and Pooja Dua, Advocates; Avishkar Singhvi, Naved Ahmed, Vivek Kr. Singh, Advocates along with Insp. Vikash Rana and SI Manoj Kumar, Crime Branch.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
