CPIO CBI v. CJ Karira

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'CIC') whereby CIC had directed the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter 'CBI') is included in the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') and, by virtue of section 24(1) of the Act, is exempt from the purview of the Act.

3. The respondent disputes the above contention and claims that, by virtue of the proviso to section 24(1) of the Act, the information sought by him is not exempt from disclosure. The petitioner controverts the aforesaid 2017:DHC:5228 contention and contends that the information sought by the petitioner does not fall within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act.

4. In view of the above, the only controversy to be addressed is whether the information sought by the petitioner falls within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act.

5. The respondent had filed an application dated 31.01.2012 with the petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following information for the period January 2007 to December 2011.

6. The petitioner had responded to the aforesaid request by a letter dated 05.03.2012 claiming that CBI was included within the second schedule to the Act and, thus, in terms of section 24(1) of the Act was excluded from the applicability of the Act.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 24(1) of the Act, which is set out below:-

8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation are not excluded from the purview. The petitioner contended that since the information sought related to allegations of corruption, the same were not excluded from the scope of Section 24(1) of the Act.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had countered the aforesaid contention and submitted that the proviso must be read in a restricted manner and, only information pertaining to allegations of corruption relating to the public authority - in this case CBI - was excluded from the purview of Section 24(1) of the Act. It was contended that since the information sought by the respondent pertain to allegations of corruption in other organisations, the first proviso would be inapplicable and, the petitioner would not be obliged to disclose the same.

10. The aforesaid question is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi: W.P.(C) 5521/2016, decided on 23.08.2017, whereby this Court has held as under:-

information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not."

11. The respondent who is present in Court states that the information sought by him has become stale and, he be permitted to file a fresh application under the Act. Plainly, the respondent is not precluded from filing an application before the petitioner for information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. In the event such application is filed, the petitioner would examine the same. Although, it would not be open for the petitioner to claim that information relating to allegations of corruption in other organisation is exempt from disclosure, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to examine whether the information sought by the petitioner is exempt under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Act.