Copies of complaints received against a specifically mentioned retired CJI and the rules and procedures regarding such probes were denied u/s 24(1), Chapter VI and Second Schedule of the RTI Act & the postal order was returned - CIC: denial upheld
28 May, 2014O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 24.7.2013 seeking copies of complaints received against a specifically mentioned retired CJI, that were with the IB, along with information on 8 points. The PIO denied the information on 8.8.2013 under 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: , Chapter VI and Second Schedule of the RTI Act. The appellant filed an appeal on 13.8.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 18.9.2013. The appellant approached the Commission on 30.9.2013 in second appeal.
Hearing
2. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 24.7.2013 and reiterated the points mentioned therein. The appellant explained that he was seeking information in respect of complaints about a retired CJI and the rules and procedures regarding such probes. The appellant also sought information about the preventive steps being taken by the Government to check corruption in the higher judiciary. The appellant stated that he wanted file notings of movement of the RTI application. The appellant said that the postal order was returned by the respondent who stated that they were exempt from disclosing information under 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: of the RTI Act.
4. The respondent stated that they have sent two letters to the appellant in this matter one on 8.8.2013, which is being acknowledged by the appellant and another on 3.9.2013 transferring the RTI application to the Ministry of Law under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for reply on points 3 to 8.
5. The appellant stated that the letter dated 8.8.2013 is cryptic and does not give any clue whether the respondent has or does not have the information. The appellant further stated that he had not received the letter dated 3.9.2013 till date.
6. The respondent stated that they can claim exemption clearly under the RTI Act from providing any information. The respondent said that this provision is a fundamental one and it would not be correct to go beyond 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: . The respondent stated that they do not have to disclose whether they have the information or do not have it. As regards non receipt of letter dated 3.9.2013 by the appellant, the respondent stated that this letter was sent by registered post and it has not been received back undelivered. However, the respondent provided a copy of that letter to the appellant in the hearing.
7. The appellant stated that at the first appeal stage, the FAA did not mention about the letter of CPIO dated 3.9.2013. The appellant further stated that a major shortcoming in the process followed by the respondent organization is that they have contravened the provision of RTI Act which stipulates that when an RTI application is transferred under section 6(3), it should be done within 5 days. The appellant stated that he understands that the postal order has been returned, but according to the correct procedure, the postal order of Rs.10/- should actually have been encashed by the respondent organization.
Decision
8. The approach of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act, and there is no need to interfere with the decision of the FAA dated 18.9.2013. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Intelligence Bureau in Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002208/VS/06814