Central Information Commission
Krishna Kumar Mishra vs Cbi on 23 April, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/181246/SD
Krishna Kumar Mishra ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation HQ,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 03.
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Anveshan Parisar,
Char Imli,
Bhopal - 462016. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
RTI application filed on : 28/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 14/07/2017 & 27/07/2017
First appeal filed on : 24/07/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 21/08/2017
Second Appeal dated : 21/11/2017
Date of Hearing : 15/04/2019
Date of Decision : 23/04/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought details of action taken on memorandum sent by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 03.06.2017 bearing no. 87671, along with its order dated 26.05.2017 issued on W.P (C) - 2003/2014 and details of action taken on the letter sent by him in this regard.1
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent (1): Not present.
Respondent (2): Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, DSP & Rep. of CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Bhopal present through VC.
Appellant argued that the CPIO is not right in claiming the exemption of Section 24 of RTI Act for denying the information sought in the RTI Application. In this regard; he relied on an earlier decision of a coordinate bench in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG dated 04.07.2011, wherein the following was held with respect to notification F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011:
"In view of the foregoing reasons, the Commission is of the view that the Notification is not in consonance with, either the letter or spirit of the RTI Act,- in particular Section 24,- for the following reasons:
1. As observed above, CBI is not an "intelligence or security organisation", which requirement needs to be satisfied in order for it to be covered under Section 24 of the RTI Act and therefore, it cannot be included in the Second Schedule.
2. No reasons have been provided by the DOPT or the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, as required under Section 4(1)( d) of the RTI Act, to justify the inclusion of CBI in the Second Schedule. In the absence of reasons, inclusion of CBI in the Second Schedule along with National Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Grid appears to be an arbitrary act. The promise made to Citizens under Section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act must be fulfilled. This Commission rules that the said notification of 9/6/2011 is not in consonance with the letter or spirit of Section 24 of the RTI Act, since it constricts the Citizen's fundamental right in a manner not sanctioned by the law."
Appellant urged that for the above reasons DoPT was not empowered to issue the notification for exempting CBI from the purview of RTI Act and resultantly, the 2 File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/181246/SD CPIO has erred in placing reliance on notification no. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application vide letter dated 22.02.2017 stating that CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made.
Decision:
Commission observes that the contention of the Appellant based on the earlier decision of the coordinate bench in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG dated 04.07.2011 that the Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt.
of India is erroneous, cannot be taken into consideration. It may be noted that Section 24(2) of RTI Act categorically provides as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule."
Adverting to the aforesaid provision, this bench of the Commission opines that it has no locus standi in gauging the intention of the Central Government for placing CBI under the exemption of Section 24(1) of RTI Act, as it will be akin to questioning the veracity of legislative intent behind the provision of Section 24(2) of RTI Act. It is not the case that DoPT went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the averred notification and therefore for the Appellant to question the authority of DoPT in this context is completely unwarranted and preposterous.
As regards the role of the Commission in interpreting Section 24 of the RTI Act, an observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs 3 Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014 is quite relevant, which is as under:
'4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption....' [Emphasis Supplied] If we squarely apply the aforesaid ratio to the case at hand, i.e if the Commission begins assessing the decision of the Central Government in having exercised its power under Section 24(2) of the RTI Act, it will also amount to carving out further jurisdiction by the CIC, which is not enshrined in the Act. Moreover, even by imputing academic undertone to the discussion on the intent of Central Government in the inclusion of CBI to the Second Schedule, Commission would be impliedly interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 24(2) of RTI Act. In doing so, regard may be had of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject of interpretation of statutes in the matter of Gurudevdatta VKSS Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2298 of 2001) in the following words:
"Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences...." (Emphasis Supplied) Commission therefore does not find it expedient to dwell into the question of whether or not the decision of the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 24(2) of RTI Act to include CBI in the exempted category of organizations was appropriate or not. Appellant in the instant case has merely contended on the said aspect while no case of human rights violation or corruption has been made with respect to the information sought in the RTI Application.4
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/181246/SD In view of the foregoing, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.04.24 13:13:47 IST
5