Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 19 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/A/2024/122350
Pankaj Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.01.2026
Date of Decision : 19.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 30.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 04.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Applicant is accused in criminal case no. 2/2017 which is under progress at Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad. Sanction to prosecute the applicant in court of Iaw was granted by an official in Ministry of Railway in response to CBI/ACB Ghaziabad registered case no: RC1202016A0010 against applicant. It may please be noted that investigation in the said case is Page 1 of 14 completed as final charge sheet under section 173(2) CRPC has been filed by CBI in court of law on21/10/2016.
In connection with above under RTI Act. Kindly provide following documents (duly attested by gazzeted officer)
i) Complete copy of file (including noting & correspondence) in which sanction to prosecute applicant under Section 19 of PC Act was processed and granted to CBI.
ii) Copy of correspondence/letter as per which prior sanction was sought by CBI under section 17A of PC Act to investigate role of applicant in FIR no. RC1202O16A0010 dated 23/8/2016.
iii) Copy of Sanction granted by Ministry of Railways to CBI under Section 17A of PC Act in response to correspondence/letter mentioned in para (ii) above.
While disposing RTI request PIO is requested to kindly go through the following CIC order
a) The contents of CIC order no. CIC/SG/A/2012/371/17851 in the case titled Shri R. Govindarajan vs. UCO Bank in which CIC directed respondents to provide copy of noting of file in which sanction to prosecute the appellant was processed even when investigation was continuing. The case of applicant stands on better footing as investigation stands completed on 21/10/2016."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.05.2024 stating as under:
"As per Sec. 24 of RTI Act, CBI is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Further, the case is also under prosecution before CBI Court. The requested information therefore can't be given under section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of RTI Act."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2024. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 09.07.2024, wherein following observations were given:
"1. & 2. The CBI/ACB/GZB, had classified their report as 'Confidential Document' and has advised that no reference of It may be made in any correspondence with the accused officers. Therefore, since the documents sought by the applicant includes documents received from CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad, the said information cannot be given to the Page 2 of 14 appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005. The requisite information/documents are exempted under Section 24 of RTI Act 2005, as some of these information/documents pertain to the CBI, which are sensitive in nature.
Further, it may also reveal the identity of those entrusted in charge of processing the matter and thus, the life or physical safety of the person concerned would be endangered. Apart from the above, source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes would be identified. Therefore, the sought information cannot be given to the appellant under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005.
3. Copy of Sanction order for prosecution (against Dr. Pankaj Kumar) cannot be given to the appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005 as the information mentioned in the said sanction order would impede the process of prosecution of offender.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri R D Ram, JDV (A & P) and Shri Hemant Dabral, SO, Vigilance is present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.07.2024 is not available on record.
Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information as sought in his RTI application. The Appellant further referred to a decision of the Commission in file No. CIC/UBIND/A/2024/112476 dated 31.07.2025 in support of his arguments. The Appellant further reiterated the contents of his written submissions, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 3 of 14"1. Appellate Authority held that documents/details that have been received from CBI is the basis of granting sanction to prosecute appellant for offenses under Prevention of Corruption Act. These documents are alleged to be confidential as CBI falls under purview of Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005.
It is not in dispute that public authority cannot claim exemption under Section 24 of RTI Act. Further, CPIO and FAA never felt any need to issue notice under Section 11 of RTI Act to CBI which is third party in this case to raise any claim for confidentiality for the supplied documents by CBI. Thus, respondent public authority are estopped from taking any action in this regard at the stage of second appeal.
It was obligatory on part of CPIO to discharge his statutory obligation under Section 19(5) of RTI Act,2005 by making a factual foundation for claiming exemption from disclosure under proviso of Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005.But, there is not even a whisper of any documentary evidence between CBI and public authority which could remotely establish the confidentiality claim of documents received from CBI. Further, CPIO failed to establish as to how Section 8(1)(h) is impede the process of prosecution.
Further, as per Section 173(2) of CrPC, 1973 CBI investigation report is opinion of CBI against appellant that is framed on the basis of evidences collected by CBI during investigation on allegation of corruption made against appellant by complainant on 22/8/2016.
Delhi High Court in case titled Union of India v Manjit Singh Bali, 2018 Supreme (Del) 3039 (copy attached) held in para 20 that "Even if it is assumed that certain information, which has been denied to the respondent, was received from CBI, the question of withholding the same would not arise if such information related to human right violation or corruption". In this case, Delhi High Court ordered appellant Union of India to provide prosecution sanction file to respondent and upheld orders of Chief Information Commission vide order no. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131334 dated 30.6.2017(copy attached).
In the subject RTI case appellant is also seeking prosecution sanction file only which is required to effectively cross-examine witness of prosecution Page 4 of 14 (Investigating Officer) who will eventually appear in Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad. The proposal to prosecute appellant was based on allegation of corruption thus, facts of the case cited above supports the case of appellant.
Further, it was incumbent on respondent to lay a factual foundation (if any) to claim exclusion under Section 24(1) of RTI Act as per law laid down in Union of India v Manjit Singh Bali(supra) but respondent has also miserably failed in this regard.
2. Sought information is required to avail the opportunity of cross-
examination effectively by putting contents of information received through RTI to prosecution witness to challenge the validity of sanction order which is necessary for maintainability of prosecution. It is settled law that providing opportunity to accused in criminal case for effective cross-examination is part of fundamental right of fair trial. Certainly, it is in public interest to provide opportunity to citizens (i.e. accused- appellant) for exercising their Right to Information for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights. It is needles to mention that RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability by disclosure of information to citizens.
3. CPIO and FAA claimed exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act as this is their apprehension that disclosure of sought information will give opportunity to appellant to threaten the officials that have opined against appellant in that prosecution sanction file.
Appellant is on regular bail granted by Honourable High Court Allahabad since 2017 on condition that appellant will not misuse liberty granted through regular bail by threatening the witness of the prosecution. Thus, even an attempt by appellant to flout the conditions imposed in bail order will expose appellant to danger of cancellation of bail. Therefore, apprehended situation to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act,2005 by respondent is not possible.
Further, there is not a single incidence since 2017 that supports the contention of CPIO and FAA to justify denial of sought information under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act,2005."
Page 5 of 148. Written submissions dated 09.01.2026 of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"The reply of the said RTI application was sent to the applicant vide this office letter No. MORLY/R/E/24/02658 (2024/V4/NR/AC/RTI/03) dated 30.05.2024 wherein the sought information was denied under Section 24, 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005.
Thereafter, Sh. Pankaj Kumar preferred 1st appeal dated 04.06.2024 under RTI Act 2005, with a request seeking information sought vide his RTI application dated 13.05.2024. The said appeal dated 04.06.2024 was disposed off vide this office letter No. MORLY/A/E/24/00536 (2024/V4/NR/AC/RTI/03) dated 09.07.2024 wherein it was informed to the appellant that the information sent to him vide CPIO letter dated 30:05.2024 was in order and no infirmity was found in the said reply.
Sh. Pankaj Kumar has now preferred 2nd appeal to Hon'ble CIC under RTI Act, 2005. Notice of hearing for appeal/complaint No. CIC/MORLY/A/2024/122350 dated 29.12.2025 has been received in this office on 06.01.2026.
In this connection, it is mentioned that the information sought by the applicant (Sh. Pankaj Kumar) relates to documents received from CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad. The CBI/ACB/GZB had classified their report as 'Confidential Document' and has advised that no reference of it may be made in any correspondence with the accused officers. Providing the sought information/documents to the applicant may also reveal the identity of those entrusted in charge of processing the matter and thus, the life or physical safety of the person concerned would be endangered. Apart from the above, source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes may be identified. Further, since proceedings against Sh Pankaj Kumar in the said case are yet to be concluded, revealing the sought information may impede the process of inquiry/proceedings.
In view of the above, the information was denied by the CPIO as well as the FAA."Page 6 of 14
9. From the perusal of the reply of the CPIO, it is noted that the information is denied under Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of the RTI Act and further noted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that "The CBI/ACB/GZB had classified their report as 'Confidential Document' and has advised that no reference of it may be made in any correspondence with the accused officers. Providing the sought information/documents to the applicant may also reveal the identity of those entrusted in charge of processing the matter and thus, the life or physical safety of the person concerned would be endangered. Apart from the above, source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes may be identified. Further, since proceedings against Sh Pankaj Kumar in the said case are yet to be concluded, revealing the sought information may impede the process of inquiry/proceedings."
10. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that copy of written submissions has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
11. The Commission upon a perusal of records and after submissions of both the parties, notes that the core contention of the Appellant revolves around the issue of denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of RTI Act. In response to which the CPIO informed the factual position that the information sought cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
12. The Commission is of the view that since the criminal case involving inter-alia the Appellant is still pending with the CBI, directing the Respondent to provide any information (which is held and originated by them) would affect the proceedings of the case.
13. 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 Page 7 of 14 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 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 Page 8 of 14 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 information 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 information 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 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.
Page 9 of 1445. 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 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 Page 10 of 14 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 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 Page 11 of 14 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."
14. 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.
Page 12 of 145. The Supreme Court in its order dated February 12, 2019 has held as under:-
4. 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."
15. The Commission further observes that the FAA vide letter dated 09.07.2024 had given comprehensive observations/decisions on the RTI application and first appeal of the Appellant.
16. The Appellant neither in his RTI application nor in his Second Appeal has established any larger public interest and his locus in seeking such information.
17. Further, the decisions as referred by the Appellant is not at all related with the facts of the present case.
18. In the light of the above observations and latest judgements of the superior courts, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the decision of CPIO and FAA.
19. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Page 13 of 1420. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Date : 19.01.2026 Copy To:
The FAA, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 Shri Pankaj Kumar, Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)