Central Information Commission
Shri Ravinder Kumar vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (South West) ... on 10 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00650 dated 24-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ravinder Kumar
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police (South West) ,New Delhi
FACTS
In the present case the appellant filed an application under RTI Act on 12.1.07 with the DCP, Vigilance and sought information:-
"1. True copy of the detailed statement of Mr. Jagdish Saxena dated 11.01.2007 and true copy of the statements of Mr. Mani Ram Gupta and others from the office of Shri Om Prakash, Sub Inspector, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, Vigilance.
2. True copy of the complaint dated 23.10.2006, DD No.19, time 9.25 PM of Mr. Jagidsh Saxena telephonically lodged against Mr. Mani Ram Gupta, (D/O of Shri Maher Singh, H/C, Delhi Police Bhavan."
The DCP replied on 15.2.07 asking applicant Shri Ravinder Kumar to file an application with the DCP (South West) and the appellant filed the same on 5.3.07 asking the PIO to provide information as stated in point No. 1 above. The DCP (South West) replied on 7.4.07 providing part information to the appellant and for the remaining information, the PIO relied upon exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) of the Act.
Appellant Shri ravinde4 Kumar then preferred a 1st appeal on 19.4.2007, which was decided by the 1st Appellate Authority on 14.5.2007. The 1st Appellate Authority Shri Rajesh Kumar JCP, Southern Range, New Delhi categorically upheld the decision of CPIO and also added exemption of third party information u/s 11 of the Act. The order of the appellate authority stated that the third party strongly objected to disclosing information to the appellant, concluding as under:
"The undersigned has carefully examined the reply of PIO(DCP)/SWD, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information/ documents solicited by the appellant pertains to the third party. Such information cannot be disclosed till the third party concurs in the disclosure, or the public authority chooses to disclose it in public interest regardless of the third party's 1 objection. In this case the third party had strongly rejected to the disclosure of the information, besides there is no public interest that would commend disclosing the information despite third party's objection. The decision of the PIO(DCP)/SWD for not supplying the remaining documents is reasonable."
Appellant Shri Ravinder Kumar has prayed before us in 2nd appeal that information asked by appellant vide RTI application dated 12.1.07 and subsequent first appeal dated 19.4.07 may kindly be provided. However, no compensation is prayed for.
The PIO and the 1st Appellate Authority have both relied upon the exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) respectively, but neither have stated how the information sought is exempt u/s 8 (1) (g).
The appeal was heard on 10-11-2008. The following are present. Respondents Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP ( SW).
Shri M. N. Tiwari, DCP/ Vigilance.
Shri L. C. Jain, LA/ CP, Delhi.
ASI, Ms. Sharmila, Dealing Assistant.
Although, informed of the date of hearing through our letter of 31-10-08, appellant Shri Ravinder Kumar opted not to be present. Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP (SW) submitted that the information sought by appellant including a copy of his own statement which is what Shri Jagdish Saxena had sought through his Advocate and appellant Shri Ravinder Kumar had, in fact, been provided to him. What has been withheld is the statement of Shri Mani Ram Gupta as witness. Besides this, Ms. Shalini Singh clarified that Shri Mani Ram Gupta is also the accused in the present case. His defence statement has already been taken on record by the concerned Court.
DECISION NOTICE In an earlier case concerning the Delhi Police, Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00581 Manohar Singh vs. DCP West, we have noted with regard accessibility to a defence statement as follows:
2."Shri Tej Pal Singh ACP was asked how exemption was sought for disclosure of the statement of accused u/s 8(1)(g) when this clearly applies only to those who have sought to assist the law enforcement agency or provide information for security purposes, not the statement in defence by an accused. To this he responded that a defence statement is not made during enquiry and the contents of the questions and answers during investigation are included in the Inquiry Report. The defence statement is in fact made before the Trial Court after charges are framed, for which appellant Shri Manohar Singh Chauhan is free to move an application before the concerned public authority for obtaining the same. 1 Since there is no statement made during investigation before the Inquiry Officer, it is quite clear that there is nothing of this nature held by the public authority, which it can give"
The above will, therefore, apply mutatis mutandis also in the present case. However, respondents are advised that while taking recourse to any of these exemptions u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act it is not enough to simply cite the particular clause under which exemption is sought but to specify how that exemption will apply in the case under consideration. In such matters the ruling of Ravindra Bhat J. of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.3114/2007
- Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors is germane.
With the above observations, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10-11-2008 1 Emphasis added 3 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 10-11-2008 4