Full Text
W.P.(C) 14827/2025 and CM APPL. 60984/2025
Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
PAVIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Karishma Maria, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Gautam Yadav , Mr. Umar Hashmi and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates for
R-UOI.
Mr Anupam S Sharrma (SPP CBI) with Ms. Harpreet Kalsi , Mr. Vashishth Rao , Ms. Amisha P dash , Mr. Abhiyant Singh , Mr. Mayank Tyagi , Ms Pragati Ojha, Advocates for R-CBI.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out from the status report dated 09.05.2022 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigatin (‘CBI’) that the CBI had sent a Self-Contained Note to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police dated 16.10.2019 for taking action against the petitioner and his father on the ground that the allegations of blackmailing against them were substantiated by the recorded statements of seven property owners/occupants. The petitioner, thus, contends that the petitioner is entitled for the recorded statement or atleast names of purported seven property owners/occupants.
3. The information was denied by the Public Information Officer (‘PIO’) and the First Appeallate Authority. The Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order before the Second Appeallate authorities. Paragraph No.8 of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Second Appeallate authoritiy, Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) is extracted as under:-
4. It thus, appears that Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) has been invoked to deny the information. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is extracted as under:- “Section 8 (1)..... (g) 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;
5. A plain reading of the provision shows that information provided in confidence for law enforcement purposes is exempt from disclosure. The statements in question were given to the CBI by seven individuals in the course of a preliminary inquiry directed by this Court. As recorded in the status report filed by the CBI, these statements substantiated the allegations of blackmailing against the petitioner.
6. The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi[1] held that the expression life in Section 8(1)(g) must be construed liberally and that the authority is entitled to form an opinion on the likelihood of danger. The Court observed: “If in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.”
7. The petitioner argues that he needs the statements to challenge their veracity. However, the RTI Act is not a substitute for criminal or civil remedies. It is meant for accessing information held by public authorities to promote transparency, and not for collaterally challenging investigation material. Under the guise of the RTI Act, these statements cannot be directed to be furnished.
8. The Court is of the view that the CPIO rightly invoked the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) and the CIC correctly upheld it. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The Court, therefore, grants liberty to the petitioner to challenge the veracity or the existence of such statements in accordance with law.
9. With these observations, the instant petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 6, 2026 Nc