Central Information Commission
Mr.S S Ranawat vs Cbi on 9 May, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 9 May 2012
Date of decision : 9 May 2012
Name of the Complainant : Shri S S Ranawat
Behind Bara Mandir, Bahala,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Special Crime Branch, A - 2 Wing
8th Floor, CGO Complex, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Sandeep Tamgadge, CPIO was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We took up both the second appeals filed by the Appellant together for hearing today. The Appellant was present in the Bhilwara studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in the Gandhinagar studio. We heard both their submissions.
3. In two rather overlapping RTI applications, the Appellant had sought, first, the copy of the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case and, second, the details about the reasons for not complying with the order of the CIC passed earlier for disclosing the said information. In addition, he had also asked for the details of all the cases which the CBI, Mumbai had investigated between the 2000 and 2011. In the former case, the CPIO had informed him that the copy of the chargesheet could not be disclosed CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615 since the CBI had already approached the Bombay High Court against the order of the CIC and that they had decided to await the orders of the High Court before disclosing the information. In the latter case, it appears no reply was sent to the Appellant at all.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant insisted that the order of the CIC should have been complied with by the CBI. It is to be noted that the CIC had, in its order dated 1 July 2011, directed the CBI to provide a copy of the chargesheet in the Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case. The CBI had not provided this document on the ground that they had approached the Bombay High Court in a writ petition against the order of the CIC. It is understood that the High Court has not granted any stay on the order of the CIC till date. It is quite clear that unless the order of the CIC is stayed by the High Court, it must be complied with. The CPIO cannot defy the order of the CIC merely on the ground that the CBI has gone in a writ petition. To this extent, the response of the CPIO in this matter is not acceptable.
5. However, there is another matter which has been brought to our notice. In a notification issued in June 2011, the central government has included the CBI in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 24 out of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to those organisations which are included in the second schedule except in cases where the information sought relates to allegation of corruption or human rights violation. All RTI applications filed in the CBI after the issue of the above notification would have to be examined in the light of these legal provisions. Information will have to be given only when it is established that it relates to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. In the present case, the RTI applications had been filed after the issue of the notification. Therefore, on the CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615 face of it, the CPIO of the CBI was not obliged to entertain these applications since in neither of these applications the information sought had any relation to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. At least, the Appellant had not brought out any fact or evidence to show that the information he was seeking had any nexus with either of these. Even then, the CPIO should have responded to the Appellant with an appropriate reply. His failure to do so in the second matter renders him liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on the penalty, however, we would like him to show cause why such penalty should not be imposed. Therefore, we direct that the present CPIO shall forward a copy of this order to the officer who acted as the CPIO at the relevant time with the further direction that that officer must appear (NIC District Centre, District Collectorate Office, Mumbai City, Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Contact Officer: Mr. Deshpande, Scientist D & DIO & Mr. Bhushan Gawande, Scientist C & DAI, Contact No. 02222679916/22664232/98919263472) on 20 June 2012 at 12.30 p.m. and explain if he had any reasonable cause for his failure to respond to the Appellant.
6. In respect of the matter in which the CIC had already given a direction for disclosure of the copy of the chargesheet in a particular criminal case, our view is that the CBI should have complied with the direction unless the High Court had issued a stay in the matter. During the hearing today, the Respondent representing the CBI argued that the copy of the chargesheet should not be disclosed in any case since it had already been presented to the trial court and had already become a part of the judicial records of that court. He submitted that merely because the CBI still retained a copy of the chargesheet, it was not the rightful owner of that chargesheet and it was the CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615 trial court which alone, as the lawful owner of the document, could decide if it should be disclosed to anyone or not. There is considerable merit in this line of argument. This Commission has already decided in the past that in matters where chargesheet and other records are filed by any investigating agency in a court of law, the copies of those records should be obtained from the relevant court alone and not from the public authority concerned. In the present case, admittedly, the copy of the chargesheet has already been filed. It would be appropriate for the Appellant to see a copy of the document from the relevant trial court rather than trying to get it from the CBI. As stated above, in any case, after June 2011, no fresh application under RTI would be entertained by the CBI except in cases involving information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violation.
7. With the above observations and directions, both the appeals are disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615