Central Information Commission
Kulam Mohamed Ibrahim vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DIREN/A/2022/109649
Kulam Mohamed Ibrahim ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director, O/o the Joint
Director, Enforcement Director,
Chennai Zonal Office, RTI Cell,
2nd &3rd Floor, Murugesha Naicker
Complex, No. 84, Greams Road,
Chennai-600006, Tamilnadu .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2022
Date of Decision : 06/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 04/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 09/01/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 08/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/02/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Though it is not necessary to disclose the reason for asking questions under RTI, Some unscrupulous officials of the above office had thrashed by slapping Kulam Mohammed Ibrahim who had come at the above office for handing over a letter of a lawyer's office yesterday (03-12-2021). The time of thrashing by slapping occurred from 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm at the reception of 3rd Floor of the office and the inside the office The second schedule of the Act has a list of organizations that are exempt from the application of this act. Though the above organization is placed on the list, the exemption is not absolute. Those agencies have to provide information regarding any allegation of corruption or act of human rights violation sought by citizens. As my submission is urgent for filing to the appropriate agency, you may send a reply within 7 days from the date of receipt as contemplated under RTI Therefore, the following question is with reference to the human rights violation
1) Please preserve the CCTV footage for the relevant time of from 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm on 03-12-2021 at the reception hail and inside the office and all the places wherever the CCTV cameras were installed at 3rd Floor at above mentioned time and date for producing evidence for your defence and also my defence
2) So preserved the CCTV footage, please give a copy of it either by CD or any form such as USB Pendrive."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 04.01.2022 stating that the information sought cannot be furnished as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2022. FAA's order dated 08.02.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
"1) I had explained in the RTI application itself that the departments that fall under the second schedule, are not exempted absolutely if the information with regard to the human rights violation and ANY allegation of corruption. But the CPIO had intentionally denied giving information, throwing away the prescribed rules of RTI 2
2) The RTI application has been made by the appellant in relating to the allegation of human rights violations which is not exempted from the purview of the Right to lnformation Act. Section 24 of RTI provides precisely to furnish information in respect of information to the corruption of and human rights violations. lt has been contended that the appellant had made such allegations, he is entitled to the information sought for.
3) I reiterate from the RTI application dated 04-12-201 that I was slapped by the Sepoy and the officials of Directorate of Enforcement before the CCTV cameras on 03-12-2021 at the said time in the office of the ED on the 3'd floor, Murugesa Naicker Complex, NO-84, Greams Road, Chennai-600006. With reference to the above coward attack, a police complaint was registered against the sepoy and the unscrupulous officials of ED..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mohit Redhu, Deputy Director & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO invited the attention of the bench to his written submissions explaining the case background and the reasoning for their reply provided to the instant RTI Application, stating as under:
"1. It is submitted that the averment in Para-1 of appeal was nowhere the part of First application and more so has nothing to do with the RTI application under consideration. This litigation is in fact conducted by Mr. S.Zahir Hussain, Advocate and employer of the appellant as can be verified from the cause title.
The said advocate Mr. S. Zahir Hussain is known for intimidating the investigating officers of Customs, ED, IT etc. The allegation of human right violation is invented to interfere in the pending investigation against his client by raising false allegations against the officers.
2. The fact remains that the appellant visited the office ED and attempted to trespass into when stopped by the sepoy and created a scene which was thwarted by the sepoy at the entrance itself. The abuse and intimidation done by appellant to Sepoy Shankaran was reported to the Chennai Police and the same has resulted in FIR No. 382 of 2021 under Section 294(b), 332, 353, 506(ii) of IPC 1860.
3. The appellant was a tool used by his employer Mr S Zakir Hussain who subsequently entered the office and intimidated the Investigating Officer in 3 presence of witnesses which was also reported to police by filing an FIR No. 397/2021 dated 29.12.0221 under section 189, 294(b), 332, 353, 447, 506(ii) of IPC 1860 against the present appellant, his employer and his client whom he was purportedly representing. The police investigated both the FIRs and filed a single chargesheet before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and the Hon'ble Court has taken cognizance under CC No. 6942/2022. The accused are released on bail in the said case. The copies of two FIRs filed by department and Sepoy Shankaran are enclosed herewith.
4. It is submitted that a counter complaint filed by the Appellant, raising false allegations, against the sepoy was investigated by the Police and referred as mistake of fact.
5. It is noteworthy that during investigation, the police authorities asked for the CCTV footage of the relevant period and the same was shared with police authorities being a responsible agency to handle the sensitive data contained in the CCTV footage. After watching the CCTV footage, police convinced that the allegations of appellant are incorrect and filed a closure report. However, as the appellant has nothing to do with the CCTV footage in person and the said footage may lead to leaking information of sensitive department in public, the exemption exercised by the department under Section 24 of the Act is rightly so and not with intent to hide any information nor to jeopardise the police investigation.
6. The appellant herein was made as a tool by his employer, namely Mr. S.Zakir Hussain, to stall the ED investigation against the client of his employer and put a grinding halt on the ED investigation by intimidating the public servants who are discharging their duties as envisaged under Foreign Exchange Management Act and Money Laundering Act.
7. Further, it is pertinent to state that employer of the appellant, namely Mr. S.Zakir Hussain, is sentenced to imprisonment for indulging in similar activity of intimidating the officials of the Customs department. In this regard the copy of Judgment of Conviction, dated 29.04.2022 in CC No. 1863 of 2014 along with its free English translation is enclosed herewith wherein Mr. S.Zakir Hussain, employer of present appellant is convicted by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai under Section 448, 341, 323, 332, 355 and 506(ii) of 1PC and is sentenced to jail with fine. The said judgment is enclosed in order to highlight the antecedent of the employer of appellant and his habitual criminal tactics to deter public servant in discharge of their duties. The appellant has raised the issue of human rights violation, only to circumvent the provisions of law and exemption granted to the respondent department under Section 24 of the Act.
48. The information sought by the Appellant has nothing to do with the alleged incident which he has been wilfully misstated before this Hon'ble Commission. Moreover, parting with the said information, i.e., CCTV footage of ED office, is not in public interest as well. In view of the same, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above, it submitted that the present application has nothing to do with human rights violation. With the nature of work performed by the department, the legislative intent was to save the work being done from this kind of intimidation and targeting the officers with mala fide intent, therefore, the department was exempt under Section 24 of the Act. As the sought information has nothing to do with the allegation of human rights violation nor is in public interest, it is respectfully prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed with costs and thus render justice."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further having considered the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission is unable to appreciate the allegation of human rights violation put forth by the Appellant. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or 5 human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6