Central Information Commission
Mr.Naresh Dixit vs Cbi on 17 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000400 dated 27.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Naresh Dixit
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation
Appeal heard : 11.6.2010
Decision announced : 17.6.'10
Facts:
By an application of 11.10.08 Shri Naresh Dixit of Hussain Ganj Chauraha, Lucknow (UP) applied to the Director, CBI seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly arrange to provide date of filing the challan and certified photo-state of the Challan filed in FIR No. 496 / 98 Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi in RC 9(S)/98- SIU.I of 13.11.98 against Shri V. Balasubramaniam, Group President, R.I.L., Shri A. V. Mathewraman, Group Vice President, R.I.L., Shri Shankar Adwal, General Manager, Reliance Telecom Ltd.
2. Details of orders passed by Trial Court in FIR No. 496/98. What charges have been framed against above officers, what action has been taken and under which section it has been taken. Kindly provide certified photocopies of the same.
3. Has CBI's charge order been challenged in any Court of Law. If yes, then what orders have been issued by that Court and whether any appeal has been filed against that Court Order by CBI. What decision has been taken on the appeal? Kindly provide certified photo stat copy of the same.
4. For how much period, the Court has provided relief to the accused persons from personal appearance in the court in Criminal Case 496/98? Whether accused persons are appearing personally or not? If no, kindly provide certified copy of the orders.
5. Why the name of Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani has been removed from Criminal Case No. 496/98, on whose written and verbal order? Whether CBI has filed any appeal or not against this order? If not, please provide certified copy of complete noting on the issue."1
To this, Shri Naresh Dixit received a response of 22.10.08 but refusing information on all points u/s 8(1) sub sections (b), (g) & (h). Shri Dixit then moved an appeal on 12.11.08 before the DIG, CBI New Delhi pleading as follows "There is no exemption available under Sec. 8(1), (b), (g) & (h) and Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, as conveyed to me in writing."
This appeal was dismissed on 10.12.08 by Shri Satish Golchha, DIG CBI SCR-I, New Delhi holding simply that ""There is no infirmity in the reply given by the CPIO." Appellant's prayer before us in second appeal is as below:
"It is prayed that action be taken u/s 18 & 19 and respondents at Sr. No. 1, 2 3 & 4 be directed to provide me the information sought by me."
The appeal was heard on 11.6.10 with arrangements for videoconference. The following are present:
Appellant (at NIC Studio, Lucknow) Shri Rajiv Singh, Assisting the appellant.
Shri Naresh Dixit, Appellant.
Respondents (at CIC chambers) Ms. Binita Thakur, SP, CBI, SCU-I Ms. Binita Thakur, SPO, submitted that this is a case under the Officials Secrets Act, which is now subjudice. Hence information regarding details has been denied in response to specific questions. However, Ms. Thakur was unable to refer to any particular decision of any Court with regard to not disclosing information concerning this case, which would warrant exemption u/s 8(1) (b). She also submitted that the FIR also has a list of witnesses, the exposure of which would trespass the exemption granted under Sec. 8(1)(g). Finally Ms. Thakur submitted that this case was subjudice and, therefore, CPIO has taken recourse to exemption u/s 8(1)(h). Besides no charge sheet has thus far been issued and, therefore, there is no question of providing a copy of the charge sheet. However, a complaint No. 13/2002 CBI vs. Balachandran & Ors. has been filed before the CMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi. This was transferred to Additional Session Judge under Complaint No. 45/2009-1-G09. Then on 25-7-09 this has gone before Ms. Shailender Kaur, Additional Session Judge where no new number has been assigned, the courts being closed till 22-6-2010.2
Shri Rajiv Singh assisting appellant submitted that the background of this case lies in FIR No. 98 which has resulted from documents having been discovered in Reliance Office which were secret documents obtained from Rashtrapati Bhawan. The Ministry of Home Affairs therefore, referred the case to the CBI on 13.11.08 for enquiry. A copy of this FIR is with appellant Shri Naresh Dixit. He further submitted that the then Home Minister, Shri L. K. Advani in answer to an unstarred Q. No. 2526 answered on 15.12.98 in the Lok Sabha had confirmed that the raids had been conducted and documents regarding INSAT 2C & 2D and contract of Gas Supply Project had been seized. A copy of this unstarred question and the answers thereto has been received from appellant and is reproduced below:
"2526 Shri Ashok Namdeorao Mohol Shri V. V. Raghavan Smt. Geeta Mukherjee Will the Minister of Home Affairs be pleased to state:
(a) Whether the CBI has conducted raids at the residence and officers of Reliance Industries Ltd. in Mumbai and Delhi recently;
(b) If so, the details of secret documents found during the raids;
(c) Whether the Executives of Reliance have been found involved with the underworld and
(d) If so, the action being taken by the Government in this regard?
ANSWER The Minister of Home Affairs (Shri L. K. Advani)
a) to (b ): The CBI has conducted raids at the residences and office premises of officials/ executives/ associates of the Reliance Group of Industries in Mumbai and Delhi recently. Photocopies of two classified documents were recovered during these raids. One of these documents relates to a proposal for long-term gas supply contract while the other document relates to INSAT 2C and 2D
(c) & (d): The investigation of the cases indicates that the Group President, Reliance Industries Ltd., based at Delhi, had links with Romesh Sharma, who was recently arrested by the Delhi Police. The cases are still under investigation." CPIO Ms. Binita Thakur submitted that insofar as the question of the involvement of the Ambani brothers was concerned, which is the subject of the question asked at Sr. No. 5, their names were not included by the CBI in the complaint. Therefore, there was no question of these names being removed. It is true, however, that the Additional Sessions Judge had summoned the Ambanis, a summons which was challenged by them before the High Court and 3 set aside. A copy of the decision of the High Court was shown to us together with subsequent notes in the CBI file, which had decided to abide by whatever decision was given by the Hon'ble Court even through the CBI had not charged the Ambani brothers in their complaint. Therefore, there was no appeal by the CBI.
DECISION NOTICE Quite clearly, much of the information that has now been disclosed before us in the hearing and recorded above could have been communicated to appellant Shri Naresh Dixit in the first instance thus saving all parties' considerable time and inconvenience. Nevertheless, because no copy of the complaint itself was in the office during the hearing on 11.6.10, respondents were invited to appear together with this copy before us on 15.6.10 at 11.00 a.m. to enable us to take a decision on the disclosability of the complaint or some of its contents.
Accordingly, Shri S.S. Kishore, Addl. SP, CBI, SC-1 appeared before us on 16-6-2010 together with the original file. A copy of the complaint on file was examined. This complaint has several components. However, the complaint itself covers the details of raids conducted and the names of those accused. It is correct that appended to this complaint is a list of witnesses. It is also a fact that the complaint has now been registered for alleged violation of the Official Secrets Act. The complaint itself only mentions the particular documents, which should have been official secrets, were found in the possession of the accused. The contents of that information are attached as annexure together with a list of witnesses. In this case what appellant Shri Naresh Dixit has asked for is the date for filing the challan and certified copy of the challan. Since it has been established that there is no challan filed in the present case but only the complaint filed by CBI on 19-3-2009 originally under No. 13/2002, and whereas appellant Shri Naresh Dixit has, in fact, not asked for a copy of the charge sheet which CPIO Shri Ratan Sanjay, IPS has mistakenly mentioned in his response of 23-10-08 as the subject of the information asked for at serial No.1,we cannot see 4 how the disclosure of this complaint, now a public document having been submitted in open court and the details of which have already been disclosed in Parliament will in any way impede the process of investigation or prosecution. Since the complaint itself has been filed before the court it cannot be a subject protected under the Official Secrets Act 1923 having already entered the public domain by the very Act of having been filed thus. Arguably the annexure attached to this complaint might qualify for exemption under Sections 8 (1) (g) and 8 (1) (h). However, these documents have not been asked for. CPIO Ms. Binita Thakur, SP, CBI is, therefore, directed to supply a certified copy of this complaint notice to appellant Shri Naresh Dixit within 10 working days of the receipt of this decision notice. Since, this information was not provided within the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1) it will now be provided free of charge. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no cost.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced on this seventeenth day of June, 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17.6.2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17.6.2010 5