Central Information Commission
Chiranjit Singh Bisht vs Directorate Of Prosecution Delhi on 26 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPREL/C/2023/631324
Chiranjit Singh Bisht ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Prosecution,
GNCTD, Tis Hazari Court
Complex, Delhi - 110054 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2024
Date of Decision : 25.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.06.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"It is to bring to your kind attention that the petitioner has doubts that Smt. Alka Goel has influenced some officials of Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD to grant her vigilance clearance for the post of Director of Prosecution, GNCTD in violation of law in spite of various corruption/maladministration related complaints made against her (I Page 1 of 5 have documentary proof and the same shall be revealed at appropriate stage). That the aforesaid officer's matter of vigilance clearance is a matter of Public Interest as it directly impacts the criminal justice system wherein rape victims, murder victims etc look forward to Directorate of Prosecution to protect their rights just as the biblical staff of Moses which had protected the masses from Pharaohs of injustice. That illegal vigilance clearance to a sensitive post of Director of Prosecution, GNCTD would not inspire confidence amongst the masses hungry for justice.
Further, to highlight that the mandate of law laid down under Section 25A of CrPC is not being obeyed in appointment of Director of Prosecution. The concurrence of Chief Justice of Hon'ble Delhi High is not being taken before appointment of Director of Prosecution and thereby office of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is being undermined by the Directorate of Prosecution in sending the file for the appointment of Director of Prosecution. Such a sheer violation of law would attract penal provisions of IPC as well as civil consequences vis-à-vis filing of petition of Quo Warranto before Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Purpose of filing the present RTI: -
The present RTI is a reflection of why the RTI Act was enacted as the main purpose was to encourage the concept of participatory democracy by making the administration more transparent and accountable as dreamt by The Father of our Nation, Gandhiji and Bal Gangadhar Tilakji. The present RTI is necessary to ensure to expose the failure of some public servants who have acted in an unconstitutional manner in the matter of vigilance clearance of Smt. Alka Goel.
Hence the present RTI.
i. Kindly provide any document which reflects that the present Director of Prosecution, GNCTD Smt. Alka Goel has been appointed to the aforesaid post in concurrence of Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi as per law laid down in S. 25 (A) (2) of Cr. P.C., 1973. (The petitioner undertakes to use the information for filing the writ of quo warranto before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi).
ii. Kindly provide whether concurrence of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court was obtained for appointment of Director of Prosecution as mandated under S. 25 A of Cr.PC?Page 2 of 5
iii. Kindly provide all file notings in the file for appointment of Director of prosecution Smt. Alka Goel.
iv. Kindly provide the number of complaints filed against Smt. Alka Goel during the period 2010-till present. Kindly provide all the Diary nos. vide which such complaints were registered.
v. Kindly provide the action taken report on complaints filed against Smt. Alka Goel during the period 2010-till present."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 04.05.2023 stating as under:
"1. In this regard, it is informed to the informant that though the provisions of Section 25A Cr. PC have been incorporated by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.06.2006 but the said provisions have still not been implemented/came into existence by way of Gazette notification and thus the said provisions are not applicable.
2. In this regard, it is informed to the informant that though the provisions of Section 25A Cr. PC have been implemented by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.06.2006 but the said provisions have still not been implemented/ comes into existence by way of Gazette notification and thus the said provisions are not applicable. Therefore, the concurrence of Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi is not required to be obtained for appointment of Director of Prosecution.
3. In this regard it is informed to the informant that the appointment of Director of Prosecution has been done in consonance with the rules that may be called the Director of Prosecution, GNCT of Delhi, Director (Prosecution) recruitment rules 2021. Further, the said notings are confidential. The informant is not entitled for the information under Right to Information Act as the said noting relates to the appointment of the prestigious post of Directorate of Prosecution
4. The information may be sought form the Vigilance Officer of this Directorate.
5. The information may be sought form the Vigilance Officer of this Directorate."Page 3 of 5
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Himanshu Garg, PIO and Shri Tilak Chand, Junior Assistant, appeared in person.
The respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 04.05.2023 and reiterated the same during the hearing. Further, they had filed written submissions dated 17.09.2024 stating complete facts of the case, copy of the same marked to the complainant and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"It is submitted that the query regarding the procedure adopted in appointment of the then Director Ms. Alka Goel was not asked by the appellant in his RTI application dated 11.04.2024. However, on specific query raised by your good self it is submitted that reply in this regard has been received from Section officer (Admn). of directorate vide letter no. F.2(778) RTI/DOP/Estt./2015/Pt.File/6484 dated 17.09.2024 (copy enclosed with the copy of said Recruitment Rules published in Gazette Notification) as per which appointment of Ms. Alka Goel the then Director of Prosecution and procedure followed in her appointment was according to the Director (Prosecution) Recruitment Rules of 2021 and the link of the said rules is also available in public (https://prosecution.delhi.gov.in/sites/default/files/rr_director_prosecution opt.pdf)"
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that it was not a case Page 4 of 5 where no reply was given to the complainant. The respondent submitted that they have already provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 04.05.2023 and 26.05.2023, a copy of which was placed on record. Besides, they had filed a written submission dated 17.09.2024, copy of the same is marked to the complainant wherein they provided a link path of their website at which the information was available in public domain.
The complainant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The written submissions given by the respondent are taken on record.
It is noted that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. In the instant case, the respondent has replied to the complainant and no mala fide was established on part of the PIO. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Prosecution, GNCTD, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi - 110054 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)