Central Information Commission
Prem Singh vs Cgda on 4 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000399/LS
Prem Singh Vs CGDA
Dated: 4.12/2009
This is in continuation of this Commission's Interim Decision dated 16/10/09. As scheduled, the matter is called for hearing on 27/10/09. Appellant is represented by Shri Mohan Singh. The public authority is represented by Shri Puneet Agarwal, Deputy CGDA (CPIO) and Shri Rajesh Chadha, ACGDA.
2. Shri Mohan Singh has filed a written representation before the Commission which is taken on record. He has relied on the following 6 authorities to buttress his case:-
1. Delhi High Court judgment dated 3.12.2007 in Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others. W.P. [C] No. 3114 of 2007.
2. CIC's decision dated 3.2.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01359 (P.K. Jain Vs DoPT).
3. CIC's decision dated 20.2.2008 in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00656 (Naresh Chand Vs Dept of Telecommunication).
4. CIC's decision dated 27.2.09 in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01121 [Shyamveer Vs. CBI].
5. CIC's decision dated 4.8.2006 in Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00072 [D.P. Sangar Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest].
6. CIC's decision dated 10.2.2009 in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/1233/AD [A.L. Motwani Vs. ITI].
3. He has specifically drawn the Commission's attention to paras 11,12,13,14 & 15 of the judgment in Bhagat Singh Case. It is his say that the bar of Section 8(1) would not operate until there is cogent material to establish that disclosure is likely to hamper investigation. It is his case that the ratio of the judgment applies in the present matter, even though the matter is under prosecution. It is also his say that the public authority has to adduce grounds to justify non disclosure of requested information and such grounds should be germane to the point at issue. He has also relied upon the decisions of this Commission referred to above. He particularly draws the Commission's attention to the paras 21 and 22 of this Commission's decision dated 10/2/09 in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/1233/AD (A.L.Motwani Vs. ITI Limited) wherein this Commission has held that information relating to the sanction for prosecution is disclosable.
4. On the other hand, Shri Puneet Agarwal would submit that they had sought views of CBI and the CBI vide letter dated 25/11/08 had advised that the requested documents should not be disclosed as disclosure would impede the process of prosecution of the offenders. Relying upon the views of CBI, he strongly pleads for non-disclosure of information.
5. It is to be noted that a similar case has came up before the Commission in File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/00685 which was decided on 26.11.2009. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) NO. 16712/2006 (Surender Pal Singh Vs UOI & Ors), the Commission had held that papers relating to sanction of prosecution are exempt from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Para 02 of the said decision is extracted below:-
"2. It is, no doubt, true that RTI Act prescribes a regime providing for transparency in the system. It is also true that this law is to be interpreted in liberal and not in restrictive terms. In other words, as per the scheme of law, disclosure is the norm and non-disclosure, an exception. Yet the exemptions provided in section 8 (1) have to be factored in, while deciding the matter. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.11.2006 of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in WP (C) No. 16712/2006 (Surender Pal Singh Vs UOI and Ors). The appellant had allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs. three lacs from a party and when the prosecution was mid-stream, he had sought the following documents :-
"(i) Note Sheet to Page 1 to page 55;
(ii) Correspondence to and from the abvoe file with CBI;
(iii) Correspondence to and from the above file with C.V.C; &
(iv) Correspondence to and from the abvoe file with Departmetn of vigilance CBEC."
This information was denied to him by the CPIO and Appellate Authority and, ultimately, the matter reached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The finding of the court is extracted below :-
"The Central Information Commission and the Appellate Authority and CPIO have held that the prosecution of the offender is pending before the Special Judge. If the prosecution of the offender is pending and not yet complete the information which is sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender, can not be faulted. The empharic argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation is already over as the chargesheet has already over as the chargesheet has already been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation is not correct. Exemption from disclosure of information can be claimed for any information which may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Since the chargesheet has been filed the process of investigation has been completed but the petitioner cannot contend that there is no apprehension with the respondent that the information sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender. Whether the respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the respondents in the present facts and circumstances. The apprehension of the respondents is not without any basis. In any case the prosecution of the offender is pending. Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it can not be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) from disclosure of information sought by the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation has been completed as chargesheet has already been filed cannot be accepted and is contrary to all the circumstances under which exemption can be claimed under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
The decision to decline the request of the petitioner for the information regarding sanction of his prosecution which may impede the prosecution of offender, can not be faulted in the facts and circumstances. There is no error or illegally in the orders passed by the respondents seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 nor any procedural unreasonableness can be inferred."
DECISION
6. Needless to say, the ratio of the above cited judgment squarely applies in the factual matrix of the present case. As the matter is under prosecution, the possibility of the prosecution being impeded in the eventuality of disclosure of requested information can not be dis-counted. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Order reserved and pronounced on 4th December, 2009.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri Puneet Agarwal CPIO, Office of the CGDA, West Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
2. Shri Prem Singh IDAS (Retd), H. NO. 1220, Section 43 B, Chandigarh-160022