Central Information Commission
Pawan Parik vs Cbi on 30 July, 2019
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/C/2018/114059/SD
Pawan Parik .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
(Special Crime Branch),
A-2 Wing, 8th Floor,
CGO Complex, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai- 400614 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/11/2017
CPIO replied on : 06/02/2018
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority order : N.A.
Complaint dated : 26/02/2018
Date of Hearing : 18/07/2019
Date of Decision : 18/07/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information through 7 points in the context of discharge of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in terms of the particulars of the case; date when the said individual was discharged; name of the officers who conducted the investigations with the timeline; reasons for not filing an Appeal against the decision of the CBI Court to discharge Amit Shah; details of all such cases during the period from 2001-2017 where no Appeal was filed by CBI against discharge/acquittal orders of CBI Court.1
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Nandkumar Nair, SP & CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, (Special Crime Branch), CGO Complex, Belapu, Navi Mumbai present through VC.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application vide letter dated 06.02.2018 stating that CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made.
Decision:
CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made.
In the instant case, Commission observes from the grounds of Complaint that Complainant had sought for action against the CPIO for not providing the information as per the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act as he believes that the instant case pertains to human rights violation of the kith and kin of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Complainant has sought to explain this aspect by remarking that CBI did not file any Appeal against the decision of CBI Special Court to discharge Amit Shah from the case as opposed to its practice of filing Appeals against all such discharge/acquittal orders of the CBI Court. Complainant has alleged in this regard that the conduct of CBI amounts to violation of right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution vis-à-vis the family members of Sohrabuddin Sheikh.
Commission summarily rejects the grounds of Complaint as Complainant has merely relied on conjecture and surmises to emphasize upon his 'perception' of 2 File No : CIC/CBRUI/C/2018/114059/SD how CBI should have dealt with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. In other words, merely because Appellant is of the opinion that CBI's failure to Appeal against the discharge order of Amit Shah amounts to human rights violation of the kith and kin of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act will not become operative.
Complainant shall note that the expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human rights'' is not defined in the Act, it is thus open for the Commission to decide the veracity of allegations on both counts on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI Applicant and 'perception' is certainly no ground to agitate right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.
With the above observations, the Complaint is dismissed as bereft of merit.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3