Information pertaining to entries made in a certain DD was denied u/s 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(j) - Respondent: appellant was part of the original police team involved in investigation but had been taken off after he compromised his position - CIC: denial upheld
14 Feb, 2014ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 14.09.2012 seeking information pertaining to entries made in a certain DD.
2. The CPIO responded on 18.10.2012 and denied information to the appellant under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed his first appeal on 16.10.2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 30.10.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 24.12.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
4. The respondent referred to the RTI application of 14.09.2012 and stated that the appellant was seeking information about the movement of the police personnel on the basis of the documentation available with the police including the daily diary record.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking information across a wide canvas ranging over 4 or 5 days in which the appellant was seeking information not only about the police travel but about all those who have accompanied the police for assisting in the investigation of a serious crime.
6. The respondent explained that the appellant himself was part of the original police team which was involved in this investigation but who had been taken off after certain facts came to light that he had compromised his position which has resulted in transfer to nonsensitive position and departmental enquiry.
7. The respondent stated that the CPIO in his reply to the appellant denied information under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and (j) of the RTI Act and FAA upheld the decision of CPIO.
8. The response of the respondent was in conformity with the RTI Act.
9. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
10. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld and no further action is required by the Commission. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Lalit Dikshit v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000397/VS/05896