Public Interest override in case of delayed investigation
2 Dec, 2011Background
Information regarding the opening of a bank account, in which a fraud of about Rs.11/- lakh was committed, was sought. The PIO denied the information under Section 8(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, he also claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; on the ground that the Bank has lodged an FIR and the case was being investigated by the Police.
View of CIC
The Commission could not visualise how fraudulent transactions can claim exemption under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the PIO is now claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act on the ground that the investigation is being carried out by the Police in this matter without any justification as to how disclosing the information is likely to impede the process of investigation. The Commission also notes that the investigation has been going on for over six months now and it does not appear that any arrests have been made. Referring to Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the RTI Act, the Commission noted that there is a larger public interest in disclosing this information and perhaps the transparency will create some pressure on the Police and other Agencies to take some action against criminals or people who may be guilty of negligence.
Comments
Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the RTI Act provides that even if the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. In this case, the Commission has held that even a delay in completing the investigation creates a ground for invoking the public interest. Such extrapolation would have a tremendous impact on many investigations pending at various levels.
Citation: Mr. K. B. Jain v. Oriental Bank of Commerce in CIC/SG/A/2011/002325/15910