Central Information Commission
Shri G. P. S. Rana vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (E.O.W.) on 17 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01652 dated 27.12.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri G. P. S. Rana
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (E.O.W.)
Facts:
By an application of 24.9.07 Shri G.P.S.Rana of Vishal Enclave, New Delhi applied to the PIO / DCP (EOW) Crime Branch, New Delhi seeking information on 38 points concerning action taken on letters addressed to DCP (EOW), Commissioner of Police, Jt. Commissioner of Police, Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission and Home Minister of India, Prime Minister of India and seeking other points of information on an investigation into issue of allegedly forged non judicial stamp papers sold by one Shri Y. K. Sharma, Stamp Vendor, together with copies of responses to the letters of Shri G.P.S. Rana.
To this he received response dated 24.10.07 from PIO Shri Prabhakar, DCP (EOW) as follows:
"The following references were received in this office;
1. Complaint addressed to Joint CP/ Crime dated 10.8.2006.
2. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 3.10.2006.
3. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 4.9.2006.
4. Complaints (two) addressed to CP/ Delhi dated 4.9.2006.
5. Complaints (two) addressed to Joint CP/ Crime dated 4.9.2006.
6. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 2.8.2006.
7. Complaint addressed to CP/ Delhi dated 2.8.2006.
8. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 24.7.2006.
9. Complaint addressed to Inspector/ AF/ EOW dated 2.8.2006.
10. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 19.7.2006.
11. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 10.7.2006.
12. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 28.6.2006.
13. Complaint addressed to CP/ Delhi dated 10.8.2006.
14. Complaint addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 10.8.2006.
15. Complaints (two) addressed to CP/ Delhi dated 30.10.2006.
16. Complaint addressed to Joint CP/ Crime dated 30.10.2006.
17. Complaint addressed to DCP/EOW dated 30.10.2006.1
18. Complaint addressed to CP/ Delhi dated 19.7.2006.
19. Complaint addressed to Prime Minister of India dated 4.9.2006.
20. Complaint addressed to Joint CP/ Crime dated 3.10.2006.
21. Complaint addressed to DCP/ West Distt. Delhi dated 19.6.2006.
22. Complaints (two) addressed to DCP/ EOW dated 23.11.2006.
23. Complaint addressed to Home Minister of India dated 4.9.2006.
24. Complaint addressed to Chairperson, NHRC dated 4.9.2006.
25. Complaint addressed to Secretary, PGC, Delhi dated 4.9.2006.
26. Complaint addressed to Director, CBI, Delhi dated 1.5.2006.
27. Complaint addressed to Director, CBI, Delhi dated 12.7.2005.
2. All the above stated references related to the issue of forged stamp papers known as Telgi Scam, sold in Delhi and the stamp papers used in Case FIR No. 236.2000 P. S. Inder Puri, New Delhi. These references were looked into and subsequently filed. You were advised to approach CBI for legal redressal of your applications pertaining to the alleged 10 people relating to Telgi Scam. You are also apprised of this fact vide letter No. 101/C/2903/06/SO/DCP/EOW dated 8.1.07 (copy attached). However, the letter did not mention the details of such references which were filed in that context. The same are now being intimated as per para 1.
3. the information sought vide this application comes into the following categories;
a. The complaints/ representations addressed to various officials of Delhi Police.
Reply: All these references were looked into and subsequently filed. You were advised to approach to CBI for legal redressal of your applications pertaining to the alleged 10 people relating to Telgi Scam.
b. The complaint/ representations addressed to MHA/PMO/NHRC and PGC and replies sent to these offices.
Reply: The references received from the office of MHA/ PMO and NHRC were received for direct disposal in this office. No reply was sent to these offices. These references were looked into along with the references mentioned in category
(a)and the reply may be considered as similar to the (a) above. The office of PGC, GNCT Delhi has been apprised 2 about the status of your references. The copy of reply sent to PGC, GNCT Delhi is attached.
c. Copies/ documents pertaining to the enquiry of the above said references.
Reply: The documents/ inquiry report sought in this application cannot be provided because it falls under Section 8 (i) (h) RTI Act, 2005 in view of the pre-registration investigation having been unde4rtaken into the said references.
d. The information pertaining to FIR No. 236/2000 PS Inderpuri, New Delhi.
Reply: The information pertaining to FIR No. 236/20000 PS Inderpuri, New Delhi cannot be provided because the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and sub- judiced and attracts the provision of Section 8 (i) (h) RTI Act, 2005."
Not satisfied, however, Shri Rana moved a first appeal before the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) with the following plea:
"The DCP (EOW), PIO (EOW) Crime Branch, Delhi has refused to provide the information sought vide the letter bearing Ref. No. 9655/2006-07/Gen dated 24.9.2007."
He then listed the questions asked and the response received. Upon this he received the following orders from Shri S. B. K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Economic Office Wing and Appellate Authority:
S. Information Sought Remarks
No.
1. PIO/ EOW has not at all provided the The contents of the para
requested information and the evasive are baseless.
reply has been provided which has got
nothing to do with the requested
information.
2. PIO/ EOIW has further refused to Already informed vide
provide the Action Taken Report on the para-2 as the reply sent to
27 letters and has simply confirmed the you earlier.
receipt of 27 letters while withholding
the information pertaining to the Action
Taken on these letters.
3. PIO/ EOW has further refused to Case FIR No. 236/2000
provide the requested information to PS Inder Puri is pending
cover up the lapses and the nexus before the Hon'ble High
between the accused and officers of Court of Delhi and sub-
3
EOW who have crossed all the judiced. Thus the
practical limits in registering the FIR exemption clause 8 (1) (h) No. 236/2000 with ulterior motives and of RTI Act, 2005 covers monetary gains. the information pertaining to the case.
4. PIO/ EOW has further refused to It is merely an assertion provide the requested information by the appellant. You can because the IO MR. Ajay Gupta, SI of approach the appropriate FIR No. 236/2000 who has been authority for the redressal, arrested in the corruption case, if you have any grievance because of the fear of getting exposed with the regard to the of the illegal acts and atrocities investigation of the said committed on the complainant and his case but the RTI is not the family members by the IO MR. Ajay appropriate forum for the Gupta, SI. same.
Shri Rana has then moved a second appeal before this Commission with the following prayer:
"i) The Hon'ble Commission is prayed to direct the Appellate Authority and Public Information Officer to provide the information sought vide letter bearing Ref.
No. 9655/2006-07/Gen dated 24.9.2007.
The photocopy of the letter bearing Ref. No. 9655/2006- 07/Gen dated 24.9.2007 is enclosed with the appeal in the Annexure No. A-2.
ii) The Appellate Authority and Public Information Officer have not furnished the information within the time specified under section 7 and malafidely denied the request for information and has obstructed the information because of which the compensation for not providing the requested information as per clause No. 20 (1) & (2) of the Rules of RTI Act, 2005 has committed the offences because of which the penalty of Rs. 250/- for each days is payable by the CPIO till the requested information is furnished be directed to make the payment as per provision to the applicant."
The appeal was heard on 17.4.2009. The following are present:
Respondents Shri K. K. Vyas, DCP Shri Ashu Girotra, S.I. Shri M. K. Mishra, S.I. 4 In the absence of appellant, when contacted on the telephone No. provided by him, we received a response from son of Shri G.P.S. Rana, who intimated that having consulted his father, who was unwell, the Commission could proceed to take a decision on the basis of the documents submitted by him.
Shri K. K. Vyas, DCP submitted that in the case of prosecution against appellant Shri G.P.S.Rana, whereas it was true that he stood acquitted by the trial court, the case was under appeal before the High Court of Delhi and the disclosure of information sought would, therefore, impede the process of prosecution. At any rate he submitted that much of the information sought by appellant had already been provided to the appellant through the copy of the charge-sheet which already stands served on him.
DECISION NOTICE If the response to the RTI request is already contained in the charge-sheet, a copy of which has been stated to have already been served on appellant Shri Rana, there should be no difficulty for PIO Shri K. K. Vyas, DCP (EOW) to provide the answers to the relevant questions with reference to the particular item in the charge sheet which answers that question. Besides this, as we have held in earlier decisions, it is not enough to cite a particular clause of the RTI Act to claim exemption from disclosure. In this matter, we are guided by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 3114/2007 in Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. in which Hon'ble Ravinder Bhat, J. has held as follows:
"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 remarket 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 5 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 UP 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 powers. 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's and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
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 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 6 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."
The plea of respondent Shri K. K.Vyas that some of these issues already stand decided in an earlier decision of the Central Information Commission, cannot be entertained now since such a decision preceded the ruling of the Delhi High Court, quoted above.
For the above reason, the decision of Shri S. B. K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner of Police (EOW) / Appellate Authority dated 20.11.2007 is set aside. He will now re-examine those issues, a reply to which has been refused u/s 8(1) sub sec. (h) in light of the ruling of the Delhi High Court, quoted by us in some detail above, and convey the information sought that will not impede the prosecution. He will complete this exercise within 15 working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17.4.2009 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17.4.2009 7