Central Information Commission
Ms.Alka Sharma vs Cbi on 24 April, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001874 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of decision : 24 April 2012 Name of the Appellant : Ms. Alka Sharma, A2, (2931), Probyn Road, University of Delhi, Delhi - 110 007.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption - I, New Head Office Building, Plot 5B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. This appeal was filed on 16 July 2011. In the normal course, it will come up for hearing much later. In order to expedite a decision in the case, we have decided to take it up now without hearing the parties.
3. The Appellant had sought some 15 items of information with reference to the PE AC 12011 A0001 dated 18 January 2011. Some of the information sought originated in the R&AW of the Cabinet Secretariat, an organisation included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CPIO had declined the information by claiming that the disclosure of the desired information given in confidence for enforcement of law or security purposes was covered by the exemption provisions of Subsection 1(g) of Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal filed before him on the ground that, in the meanwhile, the CBI had been CIC/SM/A/2011/001874 placed in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. We carefully considered the facts of the case. At the outset, we must state that the ground on which the Appellate Authority had based his decision was not right; the CBI was included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through a notification dated 9 June 2011 while the RTI application had been filed on 25 April of the same year. A notification issued months after the RTI application cannot retrospectively affect the RTI application as held by the Supreme Court of India in the Manipur CIC case. However, as far as the desired information goes, a number of items directly relate to the information originating in the R&AW of the Cabinet Secretariat and, therefore, cannot be disclosed it being an exempted organisation. Subsection 1 of Section 24 of the RTI Act provides that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule or any information furnished by such organisations to the Central Government. Therefore, clearly, the information furnished by the R&AW of the Cabinet Secretariat cannot be disclosed under the right to information. The remaining items of information fall in the category of source information given in confidence. We agree with the views of the CPIO that the disclosure of such information would identify the source of information and would clearly come under the purview of the provisions of subsection 1(g) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Thus, none of the information sought can be disclosed.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) CIC/SM/A/2011/001874 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/A/2011/001874