Central Information Commission
Shruti Singh Chauhan vs Directorate Of Vigilance, Gnctd , Delhi on 10 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00840/SG/00044
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00840
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
File no.: CIC/WB/A/2007/00840
Appellant : Shruti Singh Chauhan
Versus
Respondent : Assistant Director (Vigillance), Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD ,
Delhi
Background of the case:
Applicant filed application under Right to Information Act on 07.05.2007 asking for information on two points. The PIO provided the reply to the second point but refused to provide information on the first point. The information was refused to the following query of the appellant:
" Please provide a list of all the officers in whose case permission for prosecution has been sought from the LG for the period 01/01/2000 to 30/04/2007. The list should include the following:
a) Name of Officer
b) Date of seeking permission.
c) Date on which permission was granted.
d) Name of the department seeking prosecution.
Public Information Officer vide his reply dated 05.06.2007 informed the applicant, " There are total 25 cases in which this Directorate has sent proposal for prosecution sanction to Honbl Lt. Governor, Delhi during the period 01/01/2000 to 30/04/2007. However, details of the same cannot be provided to you in view of the provisions u/s 8 (1) (g), (h) & (j) as the disclosure would identify the source of assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and it would impede the process of prosecution of offenders. Further there is no overriding public interest in revealing such information."
Aggrieved by this refusal, the applicant filed first appeal before the First 0Appellate Authority on 14.06.2007. After hearing both the parties, Appellate Authority passed its order on 13.07.2007 and held that the section 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the Right to Information Act does not apply. But he upheld the contention of the Public Information Officer that section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act applies and therefore information cannot be provided. Neither the Public Information Officer, nor the Appellate Authority explained as to how these provisions of the Right to Information Act applies to the information sought by applicant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the applicant preferred this second appeal before the Commission on 31.07.2007.
Commission issued notices to the party's and heard the matter on 10/10/2008. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
During the hearing following persons were present:
Appellant: Ms. Radhika Arora on behalf of Shruti Singh Chauhan, with a letter of authority.
Respondent: Mr.S.K.Gupta Asst. Director Vigilance representing the PIO.
Mr.D. Verma absent.
The Commission asked the respondent to explain how Section 8 (1) (g) applies. Section 8 (1) (g) states:
"(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; "
Mr. R.K.Pahuja on behalf of respondents claims that disclosing names of persons against whom prosecution sanction was sought would endanger the safety of such people, and it can reveal the source of information. The Commission finds this argument completely untenable as it is impossible to logically accept it. To claim that revealing the name of people against whom investigations had revealed the need to prosecute is completely untenable. By this logic if a charge was framed against any individual it would have to be accepted that it would endanger their lives! The next Section applied by the PIO was 8 (1) (h), which states:
"(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; "
The process of investigation was obviously over, otherwise no sanction for prosecution could have been sought. Inspite of probing by the Commission, no explanation was given as to how providing this information could 'impede the process of... apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The respondents are not able to give any reason how this section applies. These denial of information on the grounds of these two Sections was disallowed by the the First Appellate Authority as well.
The First Appellate authority agreed with the PIO that denial of information under Section 8 (1) (j) was justified. Section 8 (1) (j) states:
"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"
The respondents claim that revealing this would be an invasion of privacy.
DECISION:
Firstly, if charges have been investigated and found to have been substantiated, leading to asking for a sanction for prosecution, this information cannot be considered as relating to the privacy of an individual. Acts of Public servants where there is a reasonable ground to believe wrongdoing, cannot be a private matter of a Public servant. It has been well accepted that the charges against Public servants must also be disclosed to the people. It has also been held that Members of Parliament and other representative bodies must themselves declare charges against themselves on oath, even when they stand for an election. Given this background, a claim that disclosing names of those against whom sanction for prosecution has been sought is an invasion of privacy and has no public interest, is completely erroneous. In any case, as soon as prosecution is launched the names and identities of those being prosecuted would be in the public domain. Therefore, as there is no difference in the status of the accused before the prosecution is launched, in both cases the accused is just that and innocent till proved guilty, there is no reason to think that revealing the names before prosecution was launched would be considered an "invasion of the privacy" but not so after prosecution is initiated.
The commission does not agree with the contention of the respondents, since:
1. This information cannot be considered as an intrusion on privacy.
2. Information about alleged wrongdoing of Public servants,- verified by a process of investigation,- cannot be termed as private information which must be hidden from the Sovereign Masters of this democracy- the Citizens.
3. Section 8 (1) (g) and (h) have used by the PIO without any application of mind.
The RTI application was worded in a very clear and focussed manner by the Appellant. The Commission disapproves of the practise of PIOs using the exemptions of Section 8 (1), without providing a reasoning. The Commission is likely to view such a practise as a denial of information without reasonable cause and take consequent actions as per the law. This time however, we feel the ends of justice will be met by directing the Public Authority to be more diligent when using the exemption clause.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the appellant by 25th October under intimation to the Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Shailesh Gandhi) Information Commissioner Date: 10 October, 2008 Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00840/SG/0044 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00840