Information about an investigation was denied u/s 8(1)(e) of RTI Act without justification - During hearing, the PIO explained the applicability of Section 8(1)(e) which was accepted by the CIC with advice to PIO to handle the RTI applications properly
23 Jun, 2022Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information pertaining to a formal investigation which was ordered vide SRO SI No. 63/2019 dated 09/08/2019 against him and the same was disposed of by Stn Cdr.:
- Provide certified copy of formal investigation report.
- Provide certified copy of all the documents i.e. letter, correspondence, signal, note on file etc. related to the said formal investigation.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)( e) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information was incorrectly denied to him u/s 8(1)(e)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
of the RTI Act and therefore the CPIO may be directed to provide the sought for information. He submitted that the exemption is not applicable as he himself is the beneficiary.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 13.04.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 25.04.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is incomplete as he had clearly failed to justify the exemption claimed by him u/s 8(1)(e)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
of the RTI Act. It is brought to the notice of the CPIO that under the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO.
The CPIO in his reply had clearly failed to justify his position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention of any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 except for stating that the information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No . 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
“This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act . In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden.”
During the hearing, the CPIO was asked to justify the exemption claimed by him, to which he explained that the above mentioned formal investigation was ordered at the previous Unit of the appellant primarily to investigate the circumstances and the facts brought out in a Grievance application. Based on the said formal investigation wherein the appellant himself participated, a speaking order was passed and a copy was also given to the appellant on 25.09.2019. He also explained the applicability of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act and also quoted a CIC order passed in File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00314 dated 09.10.2006. He also submitted that all this has been explained in his recent written submissions dated 25.04.2022 a copy of which has also been sent to the appellant. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and now that the CPIO had explained the applicability of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; , the Commission is in agreement with the submissions and the decision quoted by him, therefore no relief can be given. However, the CPIO is advised to handle the RTI applications properly and whenever any exemption is claimed, a proper justification should be given invariably.
Decision:
In view of the above, no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Umesh Kumar v. HQ Western Air Command Indian Air Force in File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2020/133146, Date of Decision: 26/04/2022