Ex Joint Director, ED, Ahmedabad sought information related to investigation started by him in 2015 allegedly to unearth huge corruption and conspiracy with ISI to stop Cricket betting investigation - CIC: It is primarily based on conjecture & speculation
20 Mar, 2021Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 03.12.2018 seeking information as follows:-
“Mr Vishesh Agarwal is as middleman and was regular visitor to the CBI, HQ. He claims to be working for UK Police. He organises lavish parties in Delhi to trap govt. officers. He has been meeting Shri M.C.R Mukund, Dy. S.P., CBI on behalf of Cricket Bookies and some businessmen to settle cases. His visiting Card is attached. The CBI, HQ maintains details of every visitor at the entry gate. Hence, provide the dates on which he visited CBI, Head Quarter, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003, during last 4 years (From Jan, 2015 to Dec, 2018).”
The CPIO denied information under Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant on 05.12.2018.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2018. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-videoconference.
Respondent: Not present
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information as the proviso to Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act stipulates that in cases of allegation of corruption, exempted organizations cannot deny the information for being a Security and Intelligence agency. He further stated that even as he sought for the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption, the CPIO has mechanically sought for the exemption of Section 24. He furthermore stated that context of his case has been placed on record before the Commission prior to the hearing which is that the information sought pertains to unearthing huge corruption and conspiracy with ISI to stop Cricket betting investigation which was started by him in the year 2015 in the capacity of being the Ex Joint Director, ED, Ahmedabad. And, that since the alleged conspiracy was done with the active connivance of Middle man like Vishesh Agarwal, the information sought regarding his visits to the CBI office is very crucial and involves larger public interest.
Decision
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is primarily based on conjecture and speculative statements. Moreover, the Appellant did not even specify as to what is the allegation of corruption in his RTI Application for the CPIO to consider the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the Commission is unable to appreciate the context or the allegation of corruption argued by the Appellant during the hearing. Moreover, to gauge the sentiment of the allegations of corruption, the Commission places reliance on one of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of First Appellate Authority cum Additional Director General of Police Vs. Chief Information Commission Haryana in LPA No. 744 of 2011 dated 28.04.2011 wherein the Court observed that:
“The expression "pertaining to allegation of corruption" is not defined in the Act. Even, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not define what are the allegations pertaining to corruption? In the absence of any statutory definition in the Act, the ordinary meaning to the expression used in the Act has to be applied. The expression "pertaining to allegation of corruption" cannot be defined. It includes within its meaning many colours and shades of corruption. There cannot be any exhaustive definition that what are the allegations pertaining to corruption. But an attempt can be made to understand the scope of the expression used in the statute.”
Adverting to the aforesaid dicta, it is pertinent to note that no such inference can be drawn from the contents of the instant RTI Application to weigh in the merits of the allegation of corruption.
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission is not inclined to intervene with the reply of the CPIO and finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
However, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross disregard for the proceedings of the Commission as well as the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is hereby directed to send his/her written explanation to the Commission in this regard within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Jitendra Pratap Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2019/637304, Date of Decision: 28/01/2021