Central Information Commission
Ms. Suman Tyagi. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, (Cbi) on 8 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00622 dated 31-3-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Ms. Suman Tyagi.
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI)
FACTS
By an application of 7.5.2007 Ms. Suman Tyagi of Moti Nagar, Delhi applied to Shri R. P. Kaushal, SP, Special Police Establishment, Jodhpur seeking the following information:
'1. Copy of statement of Suman Tyagi (Applicant) recorded in RC- 0011 (A)/ 2003.
2. Complete items of expenditures covered under Kitchen and other non-verifiable expenses along with copy of notification in this support.
3. Copy of PP's report and SPs reports/ comments in this matter.
It is also pertinent to mention here that Smt. Shashi Tyagi had also sought copy of my statement and CIC in appeal no. 250/IC/A/2006 at Para 3 has expressed that copy of statement can be obtained before concurrence of the person concerned, and person concerned has every right to obtain the same."
To this Ms. Suman Tyagi received a response dated 29.5.2007 from SP, CBI/ SPE, Jodhpur refusing the information as follows:-
"2. The request for supply of statement of Smt. Suman Tyagi, (applicant) recorded in Case No. RC-
11(A)/2003/CBI/Jodhpur as mentioned at S. No. 1 of your aforesaid letter is hereby denied u/s 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 as this case is pending trial bearing Court Case no. 02/2006 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Cases, Jodhpur at the stage of charge arguments and Smt. Shashi Tyagi (your real sister) has also filed a petition in the said Court for supply of copy of your statement. The said petition is pending for disposal and moreover, sharing of information at this stage may impede the process of prosecution of offenders and proceedings of the trial court.
3. The information/ document, the detail of which is mentioned at S. No. 2 of y our above mentioned letter dated 7.5.2007 is also hereby denied as neither you are 1 accused nor concerned with Case No. RC-
11(A)/2003/CBI/Jodhpur.
4. The information as requested vide S. No. 3 of your letter dated 7.5.2007 cannot be made available because the case is pending trial in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur at the stage of charge arguments and sharing of information at this stage may impede the process of prosecution of offenders."
Ms. Suman Tyagi then moved an appeal before the DIG, CBI Jaipur Region, upon which DIG, CBI, Jaipur has ordered as follows on 6.7.2007:-
"As the matter is pending trial before Hon'ble Court of Special Judge CBI cases, Jodhpur, the CPIO/ SP, CBI, Jodhpur has correctly applied the exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. However, the appellant is at liberty to approach the court for any documents/ information."
Ms. Suman Tyagi's prayer before us in her second appeal is as below:-
"Appellant prays the CIC New Delhi to kindly direct the CBI for disclosure of the information and inspection of the files in questions.
Application of section 8 (1) (h) will not apply in the request of the appellant as appellant is a citizen of India and has right to access the information in the public interest. Denial of the information by the Public Authority is against the spirit of the statute and parliament and ail/ transparent working of the Public Authority. Appellant may also be given opportunity to be heard personally by CIC."
This appeal was misdirected to the Rajasthan Information Commission and received wherefrom by this Commission on 20.3.2008. It was then heard on 7.9.2009 and the following were present:-
Appellants at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Ms. Suman Tyagi.
Shri. S. K. Tyagi, assisting appellant.
Respondents at NIC Studio, Jodhpur.
Shri O. P. Gaur, SR. S. P., CBI, Jodhpur, Shri Gaur, SSP, CBI, Jodhpur representing both the CPIO and Appellate Authority submitted that point Nos. 1 & 3 were matters at issue in a case pending before the court of Special Judge, CBI cases, Jodhpur and the information cannot, therefore, be provided. Moreover, so far as point No. 2 is 2 concerned appellant was not concerned with the case and therefore, did not merit disclosure.
He submitted that similar information had been sought by Ms Shashi Tyagi, which request was finally turned down in appeal before this Commission under file No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00650 of 7.9.2006. Besides, Shri O. P. Gaur submitted that the statement of Smt. Suman Tyagi had been recorded by the CBI but had been disapproved in investigation and has, therefore, not been cited as relied upon evidence submitted before the Trial Court.
On point No. 3 Shri Gaur submitted that this information has been culled from the case diaries which are not disclosable under the RTI Act and are confidential. However, these reports are also not part of the documents submitted to the court in connection with this case. Besides, he submitted this report is a confidential report for in-house use of the Department and goes into the internal discussion of the matter, which could have the effect of compromising the prosecution.
Shri S. K. Tyagi assisting appellant submitted that these documents cannot be kept confidential as they concerned the appellant herself, particularly the information sought at point No. 1 which is a copy of the statement made by her and can, therefore, in no way be cited as an impediment to the prosecution.
DECISION NOTICE On point No. 2 the information sought is of a general nature. not necessarily related to the case before the Special Judge. As submitted by Shri Gaur in the hearing before us there is no notification in this regard but there is an internal circular. Surely, if there is such a standard followed in the investigation by CBI the public has a right to know. On this question, therefore, there can be little argument that the information sought is eminently disclosable.3
On point No. 1 & 2 section 8 (1) (h) has been pleaded citing a decision of this Commission of 7.9.2006. Such decisions of this Commission, however, now stand overridden by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. In WP No. 3114/007 in which Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat J. has held as follows specifically with regard to disclosure of information under section 8 (1) (h).
"11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers". In Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court remarked about this right in the following terms:
"The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an "aware" citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizen to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them."
This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for the first time by Justice K.K. Mathew in the State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, (1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court on a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force.
12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
413. 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 self. Under Section 8,exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of 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.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms, there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta 2005(2) SCC201; B. R. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma vs. Sesha Reddy 1977(3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restrictions on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."
Besides, in both questions the information is not part of the prosecution documents. The information sought at point No. 1 is a statement of appellant herself and even should this have been discredited subsequently, there is no way in which her own statement can be used by appellant Ms Tyagi as an impediment to a prosecution which is already being contested.
On point No.3 there is an issue of case diaries. It is correct that case diaries are part of internal investigation and not necessarily disclosable. However, under the RTI Act 2005 all information that is held by public authority is disclosable unless it is exempt from disclosure. In this case the exemption sought is under Section 8 (1) (h), which as can be seen from the quotation cited above cannot be held to exempt the information sought in the present case from disclosure. However, it is quite possible that in the reports names of individuals who have assisted the investigation and sources of 5 information are mentioned that are indeed exempt from disclosure u/s 8 (1)
(g). However, under the severability clause contained in sub Section (1) of Section 10 it will be possible to disclose the information sought after deleting the exempted information.
Under the circumstances we find all three points to be disclosable information. The same will now be provided to appellant Ms. Suman Tyagi free of cost subject to the qualifications described in the previous paragraph with regard to question No.3, within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no cost.
Reserved in the hearing this Decision is announced in open chamber on this eighth day of September 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 8-9-2009 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 8-9-2009 6