Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shubham Surana vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 18 February, 2026

                                के ीय सू चना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DIREN/A/2024/120729

Shubham Surana                                        .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Pravartan Bhawan, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam Road, New Delhi -110011                         .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    16.02.2026
Date of Decision                    :    18.02.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    19.01.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    20.02.2024
First appeal filed on               :    18.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    16.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    25.06.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024 (offline) filed before, CPIO, Regional Passport Office, Brabourne Road, Kolkata, seeking the following information:

"The applicant is a law-abiding citizen, aged about 22 years perusing his bachelors from JD Birla Institute, Kolkata. A summon was issued by the Directorate of Enforcement in the name of my father namely Shanti Surana and also in the name of my mother namely Prabha Surana, to attend the office of Directorate of Enforcement for the purpose of investigation ECIR/HQ/11/2020. The applicant has come to learn that a lookout circular (LOC) against the applicant has been issued even though she is nowhere related in the aforementioned case in which Directorate of Enforcement had summoned the parents of the applicant. In the light of the above the undersigned is constrained to seek the following information in terms of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and in exercise of his Right to access information under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

i. Is there any look out circular (LOC) issued in the name of the undersigned holding passport No. T4321477?

ii. If the answer of the query No.(i) is yes, please inform:

a) What is the date and details of the lookout circular (LOC) issued?

b) What is the current status of the lookout circular (LOC) issued?"

2. The CPIO, Regional Passport Office, Brabourne Road, Kolkata forwarded the RTI application to the O/o CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata who further transferred the application to the CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement, HQ, New Delhi vide letter dated 19.01.2024.

3. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.02.2024 stating as under:

"Sh. Shubham Surana, R/o. 1, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Metro Towers, 7th Floor, 7A, Kolkata, Pin: 700071, (Herein Referred to as Applicant) filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2024 under RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information which has been received on 13.02.2024 at this end.

In this connection, attention of the applicant is invited to Section 24 read with second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as under:

"Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. Provided that the information CIC/DIREN/A/2024/120729 Page 2 of 5 pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of Central Information Commission.....

Directorate of Enforcement is one such organization specified at Sl. No.5 of the Second Schedule of the Act.

The applicant is, therefore informed that the required information cannot be provided in view of the exemption granted under Section 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005"

4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present along with his counsel Ms. Mohini Majumdar, appeared through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Sumit Goyal, Dy. Director/CPIO and Adv. Divya S. Rao, Legal Consultant, appeared in person.

6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

7. The Appellant along with his counsel reiterated that he is not related to the alleged investigation against his parents and therefore, sought confirmation regarding the existence and status of any LOC issued in his name.

8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they received the RTI application by way of transfer under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act from Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, and they informed the Appellant that the Directorate of Enforcement is an organization specified in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is therefore exempt from the purview of the Act under Section 24. It was further contended that the information sought pertains to investigative processes and disclosure thereof would reveal sensitive operational details relating to ongoing or past enforcement proceedings. The Respondent emphasized that the RTI application does not contain any allegation of corruption or human rights violation so as to attract the proviso to Section 24. Hence, the denial of information was strictly in accordance with the statutory exemption.

Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that Appellant sought information as to whether any Look Out Circular had been issued in his name and, if so, the date, details and present status of such LOC in connection with investigation ECIR/HQ/11/2020. The RTI application was initially filed before the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata and subsequently transferred to the Directorate of Enforcement, HQ, New Delhi, which furnished the impugned reply.

10. The Commission observed that the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, therefore, enjoys exemption under Section 24(1) of the Act. The only exceptions to this exemption relate to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. In the present case, the Appellant has neither alleged any corruption nor any violation of human rights; rather, the information sought relates to the existence and status of a Look Out Circular in connection with an investigation.

11. The Commission notes that disclosure or even confirmation of issuance of an LOC may reveal sensitive investigative details and the course of enforcement proceedings. Such information squarely falls within the exempted domain of an organization specified in the Second Schedule. The CPIO has rightly invoked Section 24 of the RTI Act in denying the information.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA. The denial of information under Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act is found to be justified and in accordance with law. Accordingly, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-

(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Directorate of Enforcement, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi - 110011 CIC/DIREN/A/2024/120729 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)