Central Information Commission
Ramendra Singh Verma vs Ministry Of Defence on 16 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/103866
Ramendra Singh Verma .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
E 1D, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch,
Kashmir House, Integrated HQ
of MoD (Army), DHQ PO,
New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Decision : 15.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 29.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. It is submitted that prosecution sanction was accorded by Engineer- in-Chief vide order NO.78650/3580/WC/2016/E1D dated 24 April 2017 in Page 1 of 8 r/o CBI case no. RCCHG 2016 A0026. It is intimated that Engineer-in-Chief had stated in court during cross examination that draft copy of sanction order was also received along with request from CBI.(copy of cross examination is enclosed) It is therefore requested to please, furnish copy of 'draft sanction order' to me defend my case in the High Court."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.06.2023 stating as under:
"The custodian of the information has inform that the document (copy of draft sanction order from CBI) asked by the applicant in his RTI dt 29 Mar 2023, has been received in 'Confidential' letter. Hence, the same cannot be provided as per provision of Section 8 of RTI Act 2005.
This disposes of your above application as per RTI Act."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 14.05.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by the Respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...The custodian of the information has informed that the document (copy of draft sanction order from CBI) asked in his RTI dated 29 Mar 2023 was received in 'Confidential' letter from the CBI. Hence, the same could not be provided as per provision of section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Amit Ranjan, Director (D&V)/CPIO present in person.
6. The Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Page 2 of 87. The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 12.06.2023, they have provided the reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Now at the stage of the second appeal, they have provided updated reply to the Appellant vide written submission dated 14.05.2025 claiming exemption for disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking copy of draft sanction order received by the Respondent organization from CBI for prosecution sanction against him. The Commission is of the opinion that since the criminal case of the Appellant is still pending in the CBI court, directing the Respondent to provide such information would affect the proceedings of the case and therefore, the exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act claimed by the Respondent is upheld. Further, CBI is an exempted organisation under Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and any information shared by CBI with the Respondent is also exempted and cannot be provided to the Appellant, under RTI Act, 2005.
9. In this regard, before deciding on the issue of disclosure of information, the complexities involved in such corruption trials and how disclosure of information may dilute the proceedings has to be understood. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a recent judgement in Gulab Singh Rana vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, WP No 37231/ 2016 decided on 08.12.2021 has elaborately dealt with the issue. The following observations are particularly relevant to the instant matter:
"38. The petitioner requested for a copy of request letter received from CBI for seeking sanction, copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of Disciplinary Authority for giving sanction for prosecution, copy of first advice given by CVC, New Delhi, the outcome of the reconciliatory meeting between Disciplinary Authority and CBI office of the New Delhi, the copy of any further clarification sought for by the CVC, the copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of Disciplinary Authority for giving sanction for prosecution, the copy of latest correspondence from CVC requesting/advising the Page 3 of 8 Bank, the copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of the present Disciplinary Authority and finally copy of draft sanction supplied by CBI.
39. Considering the nature of questions sought for, interestingly, the first information is the request letter received from the CBI for seeking sanctioning. The said letter may have certain information pertaining to the investigation/interrogation. The second document is copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of the Disciplinary Authority. 40 .This Court is of the considered opinion that note file, opinions, views of the Disciplinary Authority may vary from time to time based on the informations and based on the collection of facts and evidences. Even at later point of time, initial opinion may not be final opinion in many cases. Subsequent facts may provide a different views and opinion and therefore, if the copy of the opinion and views are supplied, it will create unnecessary hindrance for the peaceful investigation, interrogation and to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings. For example, on receipt of the preliminary report, the Disciplinary Authority would have formed certain opinions or expressed some views. However, those opinions and views cannot be construed as final, as far as the decisions to be taken. During subsequent period, if further documents are made available or certain other facts are placed, then the Disciplinary Authority may change his opinion or views. This is exactly the reason why, in disciplinary case, the rule contemplates opportunities to the delinquent officials. Therefore, the internal office memorandum containing opinion/views if supplied, undoubtedly, would create unnecessary issues as the petitioner will certainly rely on the document for the purpose of destroying the case. However, any accused/delinquent officials is entitled to defend his case in the manner known to law.
41. Thus, furnishing of such opinions and views of the Disciplinary Authority at various stages, if provided under the RTI Act, then it will hamper the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and further, disrupt the investigation to be conducted by the investigating agency.
42. Perusal of other documents and informations sought for by the petitioner are all relatable to the reconciliatory meeting between the officials. Clarifications sought for by the CVC, latest correspondence etc., of such informations and documents sought for reveals that it is between the authorities and more so, relating to views/opinions, internal correspondences etc.,
43. No doubt, all such correspondences are protected under Section 8 of the RTI Act. However, it is the "subjective satisfaction" of the authorities. The "subjective satisfaction" must be considered by the Public Information Officer, while complying with the request of the information seekers. This exactly is the purpose and object of 8(h) of the Act. "Section 8(h) contemplates of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
44. Where the circumstances narrated under Section 8(h) on that informations, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of Page 4 of 8 offenders. Thus, if the information provided, would cause any hindrance to the investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The language employed is "Apprehension". Thus, "Apprehension" of the competent authority is also considered in the legislation. The word "Apprehension", no doubt, can be interpreted widely and further, it provides discretion to the authorities for forming an opinion, whether there is an "Apprehension" or not. In this regard, the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is of paramount importance. The Public Information Officer is expected to consider in the event of furnishing such informations, which all are connected with the investigation or prosecution of offenders and providing of such informations, would impede the process, then, he is empowered to exercise power of discretion and reject the application of the information seeker. Thus, the scope of section 8(h) is to be understood, with reference to the context and to the subjective satisfaction of the authorities competent. If the competent authority satisfied that there is a likelihood of impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders, then such informations or documents shall be denied.
45. The purpose and object of the exemption clause is to ensure that the administrative confidentiality are protected and because of providing of information, the further continuation of investigation or prosecution cannot be impeded. This being the scope of exemption under Section 8(h), the questions sought for by the petitioner in the present case with reference to 8(h) is to be considered.
46. As discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the questions and documents sought for by the petitioner in the present case is relatable to internal office memorandum containing opinions/views of reconciliatory meeting between the Disciplinary Authority and CBI clarification sought for by CVC internal office memorandum containing opinions/views latest correspondences from CVC etc.,
47. This Court is of the considered opinion that such informations, if provided, it will create unnecessary hampering of the Disciplinary Proceedings or the prosecution. Even an apprehension in this regard is sufficient is to deny information to the applicants. The word "Apprehension" is employed in the Act, so as to protect the prosecution and process of investigation, which should not be paralyzed at any circumstances in the public interest. When the investigation is undertaken, then the authorities must be provided with an amount of discretion for the purpose of culling out the truth in respect of the allegations. Thus, any hindrance in between, would undoubtedly paralyze the investigation process, which would dilute the prosecution and would extend unlawful benefit to the accused persons.
48. The opinions and views formed by the competent authorities on every stage may vary or change depending on the progress made in the investigation and based on the further facts culled out from and out of the evidence. During the course of such investigation or prosecution, if information are provided regarding the opinions already formed, then undoubtedly the same will hamper Page 5 of 8 further investigation and disrupt the prosecution to be conducted by the agency. If such nature of information or documents are provided, then it may not be possible to proceed with the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the offence.
49. In this context, the rights of both the parties should be considered by the Courts. It is not only the right of the information seekers, but the right of the information provider must also be considered by this Court. Whenever a statutory right is conferred to the citizen, equally such right is conferred to the other citizen, whose interest is also to be protected before allowing a person to exercise such a statutory right. To elaborate, right and duties are corresponding terms, so also, rights can be exercised by any citizen, honouring the corresponding rights of the other citizen. It is exactly the constitutional perspective and the philosophy. Take a case, where information or documents are mechanically provided to the information seekers in all circumstances, then the right and duties of the investigating agency and the prosecutors are denied, establishing their cases before the competent Court of law or before the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, a balancing approach is required, while implementing the provisions of the RTI Act. It is not as if, an information seeker is entitled to get all information and documents including certain internal correspondences and views or opinions recorded by the competent authorities then and there and time to time. Therefore, practical and pragmatic approach coupled with rules of constructive interpretation is of paramount importance to take a decision in such circumstances. In the event of committing any lapses, the same would provide unlawful gain to the accused/delinquent persons, which would result in destruction of the prosecution or the case of the Disciplinary Authority and larger the public interest involved in the matter of criminal prosecution is also to be considered by the Court. State being the prosecutors, right of investigation, collected evidence, record the opinions and views in those files must be protected in all circumstances and by obtaining all such information and documents from the competent authorities, the accused may not be allowed to destroy the basis of prosecution as such views/opinions or internal correspondence can never be construed as final opinion/views or the final decision.
50. Considering the fact that the Central Information Commission elaborately considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the order passed in the Second Appeal, arrived a conclusion that the exemption granted to CBI from applicability of the RTI Act, in terms of Section 24(1) would became meaningless. If RTI applicants would get information from another Public Authority, the very information that they cannot get from the CBI or information, inexplicably linked to the information and materials provided by the CBI to the Public Authority.
51. The above findings of the Central Information Commission explicitly clarifies that what an information seeker could not able to get from the CBI, cannot attempt to get from his employer or from other agencies. Such calculated applications filed under the RTI Act, at no circumstances, are entertainable. In the present case, the information and documents sought for are no doubt Page 6 of 8 relating to the files being maintained by the CBI and about the investigation of the Criminal case, so also pertaining to the sanction, which all are relatable to investigation/interrogation or prosecution. Thus, the first proviso to Section 24(1) cannot be extended merely under the ground that the word 'Corruption' is employed in the Statute.
52. Distinctions are to be drawn in this regard and Section 24(1) proviso must be read and understood along with the spirit of Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act. Rule of constructive interpretation in such circumstances are imminent to ensure that the purpose and object of the RTI Act is not defeated. So also at the time of providing information or documents, the rights of other parties and the criminal laws system of prosecution by the State is not affected or destroyed on account of providing such confidential information to the information seekers.
53. In view of the principles considered by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is able to form a concrete opinion that the information and documents sought for by the petitioner are rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, First Appellate Authority and finally by the Central Information Commission/Second Appellate Authority."
10.Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India vs. Shiv Narain, WP(C) 7204/2016 dated 27.03.2019 which pertains to similar facts and circumstances advised the information seeker to obtain the information from the concerned trial court where the matter was pending. The relevant observations are hereunder:
"2. The respondent herein sought information from the petitioner on the following two issues:- "1. Whether the report vide letter no. RSVY/CE/CE & PM/55(1) 892 dated 12.02.2013 addressed to Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Patna by Shri D.S. Kapur CE cum PM RSVY project Zone, CPWD, Patna in connection with the subject referred above was submitted by the CBI before the sanctioning Authority before grant of prosecution sanction. 2. The certified copy of the note sheet of the above mentioned case from the beginning to the issue of prosecution sanction may also be given for which I am ready to pay the requisite fee."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly drawn my attention to an order dated February 12, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1632/2019, which is an appeal arising from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2272/2013 dated September 16, 2014 and the Division Bench in LPA 471/2015 dated August 17, 2015, wherein information also includes copy of the note sheet for processing the decision to refer the said case to Anti Corruption Branch of CBI for investigation. In the said case, the said information was denied to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma.
5. The Supreme Court in its order dated February 12, 2019 has held as under:-
Page 7 of 84. The dispute remains about document Nos.1, 3 and 4 as they were not supplied considering the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and it was opined that it was source information that has triggered the anti-corruption proceedings and nothing should be done which affects the proceedings or which compromises the position of the sources of information.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons employed by the Information Commissioner, we are of the opinion that there was justification in refusing to supply the aforesaid documents. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of trial, if the trial Court feels it appropriate and if a prayer is made, the documents may be called by Court in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent herein shall have the liberty to seek the document, which he has sought under the RTI Act from the learned Trial Court, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. Suffice it would be to state that it is for the respondent herein to seek appropriate orders from the learned Trial Court. In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the order of the CIC dated February 29, 2016, is set aside, the writ petition is allowed."
11.In the light of the above observations and judgements of the superior Courts, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the decision of CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, E-in-C's Branch, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, New Delhi - 110011 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)