Central Information Commission
Shyam Sunder Talwar vs Delhi Police on 2 February, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeals No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/654024
CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/643593
Shri Shyam Sunder Talwar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
..िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Additional DCP-II cum-PIO, Rohini District,
Sector-23, PS Begumpur, 1st Floor, Delhi-110086
Date of Hearing : 01.02.2021
Date of Decision : 02.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since a Second Appeal and a Complaint has been filed on an identical RTI
application, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and
disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on /Complaint
received on
654024 05.05.2019 04.06.2019 21.06.2019 22.07.2019 15.10.2019
643593 05.05.2019 04.06.2019 - - 21.06.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/654024 (2) CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/643593 The Appellant/Complainant filed two RTI applications dated 05.05.2019 seeking information regarding FIR No. 0326 dated 06.07.2018 on following 13 points:
1. Kindly provide attested copy of all sort of notices (including those issued u/s 91 and 160 IPC). memos, letters or other sort of communications which were issued to the accused persons in the aforementioned FIR for the period from the date of registration of the FIR to till the date of responding this RTI application.
2. Kindly provide the details of the accused who have been contacted by the investigating officer from the date of registration of the FIR to till the date of Page 1 of 4 responding this RTI application. In this regard, on the basis of available record kindly provide the dates on which said contact was made.
3. Kindly provide attested copy of the replies, along with the enclosures, furnished by the accused to the Notices etc. referred at 1 & 2 above.
4. Kindly provide on the basis of available record whether report of FRRO to the effect that accused Mr.Mohd. Rafeeque was not present in India on 22.112017 or 23.11.2017 has been obtained in aforementioned FIR. (a) If yes, kindly provide a certified copy of it and (b) If no, kindly provide attested copy of all communications exchanged for this purpose with FRRO and / or with other concerned authorities.
5. Kindly provide the (a) name, (b) designation, (c) unit (viz Police post Rohini Court, Prashant Vihar Police Station etc.), (d) official telephone number and (e) official email Id of the IOs who have been entrusted with the investigation of the above case(1) while mentioning the time period during which they investigated on the above FIR. The information is required for the period from the date of registration of the FIR to till the date of responding this RTI Application.
6. Kindly provide attested copy of all of the Status Reports which were filed by any of the IO in the aforementioned case.
Etc. The CPIO, Rohini District, Delhi furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 04.06.2019 stating as under:
"As per report Police post Rohini Court & SHO/Prashant Vihar, investigation of case/FIR No. 326/18 is still pending.The requisite information cannot be provided to the appellant u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,2005, as it may hamper the investigation."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2019.The FAA, vide order dated 22.07.2019,observed that PIO/RD has provided correct and complete information to the Appellant/ Complainant on his RTI application dated 05.05.2019 on the basis of report of SHO/Prashant Vihar. However, on appeal of the Appellant/ Complainant, a fresh report was again obtained from SHO/Prashant Vihar/Rohini District and a copy of the same was provided to the Appellant/ Complainant with the order.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing through video conference alongwith Shri Deepanshu Talwar. It was stated that point wise details as sought in his RTI application were not provided by the Respondent and a generic response denying the information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 was given. Explaining the reason for seeking the information, the Appellant/ Complainant alleged that the accused Shri Mohd Rafique against whom he had filed the FIR which is the subject Page 2 of 4 matter of this RTI application, was guilty of perjury since he misrepresented the fact that he was present in India while filing an anticipatory bail application whereas he was actually residing in Dubai at that point of time. It was also his apprehension that the IO investigating this matter was acting in connivance with the accused and intentionally denying him the information.
The Respondent is represented by Ms. Kamal Duggal, Inspector, Shri Ashok Kumar, Inspector and Shri Neeraj Kumar, SI through video conference. The Respondent stated that although exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed initially, however, subsequently, the status reports dated 16.08.2018, 16.11.2018, 18.01.2019, 25.01.2019 and 27.07.2019 were provided to the Appellant/ Complainant at the FAA hearing stage.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission notes that the information sought in points 7 and 9 to 11 of the RTI application are clarificatory in nature which do not fall within the purview of the definition of information and right to information u/s 2 (f)/ 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, periodic status reports have been provided by the Respondent to the Appellant/ Complainant as per available records.
The Commission however observes that the onus is on the party seeking exemption from disclosure of information, under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act,2005, to show that by disclosing such information, there would be impediment in the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In the present instance, such explanation is not provided by the Respondent.
In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in BHAGAT SINGH Versus CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER and ORS. [WP(C) No.3114/2007], can be cited wherein it was held that:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
Moreover, the Commission observes that the Respondent cannot claim exemption under Section 8(1)(h) in every matter, in a routine manner. The stage of investigation should not be a never-ending process and the Respondent, relying on such delayed investigation, should not claim a blanket denial of information in all such cases under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The Applicants should not be made to wait interminably for availing off information which should be disclosed in Page 3 of 4 a timely manner, as per the provisions of the Act. It is however clarified that the above mentioned observation should not be seen as a direction from the Commission to the Respondent to complete the investigation within a specified time period since no such power vests with the Commission as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Based on the above observations, the Commission directs Shri Jitender Meena, PIO and DCP, Rohini District, Delhi Police to re-examine points (1, 3, 4 and 13) of the RTI application where Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed and provide a revised reply to the Appellant alongwith detailed reasons/ justification in case the PIO still holds the view that the information is exempted u/s 8 (1) (h) of the Act. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 15.03.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/643593 filed before the Commission, it is evident that no malafide denial of information or non-disclosure on any unreasonable ground is justified by the Complainant in the instant matter. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required and the Complaint stands dismissed.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4