Full Text
Date of Decision: 09.10.2013
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
The respondent before this Court, vide application dated
10.10.2009 sought the following information from CPIO of the Ministry of Home Affairs with respect to one Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas:
2. DESTINATION
3. AIRLINES
4. PASSPORT NO.” Vide yet another application dated 09.12.2008, the respondent provided information such as passport number, date of departure, flight number and destination to which late Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas had proceeded and sought the information desired earlier.
2. The applications submitted by the respondent were transferred by CPIO of MHA to the Intelligence Bureau. The CPIO of Intelligence Bureau vide communication dated 29.12.2009, informed the respondent that in view of the provisions of Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule to RTI Act, 2005, the said Bureau is exempt from providing any information. Being aggrieved from the said communication, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal having been dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Central Information Commission by way of second appeal vide impugned order dated 20.07.2011. The Central Information Commission directed as under:-
3. As regards information sought by the respondent vide application dated 10.10.2009, the desired information could not have been provided by the petitioner in the absence of particulars as to when he left India, and vide which particular flight. The same would be the position with respect to the information sought vide second application dated 26.11.2009. However, vide application dated 09.12.2009, the respondent gave particulars such as passport number of Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, the date of departure from India, flight number as well as the destination for which he was alleged to have left. The Immigration Office at the Airport is a wing of Intelligence Bureau and every person going out of India is required to obtain immigration clearance before, he can board the flight. Therefore, in case Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas left India on 10.10.2009 for Auckland on flight No. CX708, such an information can be available with the Immigration Office controlled by Intelligence Bureau. However, the difficulty in the matter is Intelligence Bureau is one of the organizations included in the Second Schedule appended to the Right to Information Act and its name appears at Serial No. 1 of the Schedule. Section 24 of the RTI Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “24. Act not to apply to certain organizations. – (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:” Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to the aforesaid organisation except in the matters relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation.
4. The information sought by the respondent was neither any information related to the allegations of corruption in Intelligence Bureau nor an information related to the human rights violations. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing the Intelligence Bureau to provide the said information to the respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Central Information Commission being contrary to the provisions of the Act, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
5. However, in my view, if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act. It appears that there is a litigation going on in Rajasthan High Court between the respondent and Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas. It also appears that the respondent has a serious doubt as to whether Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, who was reported to have died on 03.09.2009, has actually died or not. The Intelligence Bureau could possibly help in such matters by providing information as to whether Dr. Vyas had actually left India on 10.10.2009 for Auckland on flight No CX708. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, I direct the Intelligence Bureau to consider the request made by the respondent on administrative side and take an appropriate decision thereon within four weeks from today. It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not. Whether a person aggrieved from refusal to provide such information can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a matter which does not arise for consideration in this petition. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 09, 2013 BG