Central Information Commission
Mridul Chakravarty vs Cbi on 23 June, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001252/MP
Appellant : Shri Mridul Chakravarty, New Delhi.
Public Authority : Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 02nd June, 2017
Date of Decision : 22nd June, 2017
Present
Appellant. : Present at CIC.
Respondent : Shri Rajiv Ranjan, SP, Shri Sunder Lal, DLA
and Shri Pramod Kumar, DSP at CIC.
RTI application : 25.04.2016
CPIO's reply : 05.05.2016
First Appeal : Nil
FAA's order : 05.07.2016
Complaint : 16.07.2016
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Mridul Chakravarty submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi seeking entire case diary documents (U/s 172 Cr. P.C) maintained by CBI in the matter of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case which culminated in Criminal Case No. 8460/1996 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.
2. The CPIO denied the information stating that vide notification No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 issued by Government of India, CBI had been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as CIC/SB/A/2016/001252/MP 1 such RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable to the CBI. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA while upholding the decision of the CPIO held that as per the provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, the RTI Act was not applicable to the CBI.
3. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on the grounds of information sought having been denied by the respondent authority.
4 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought case diary pertaining to FIR No. RC-3/84-CIU dated 06.12.1984 in respect of his client Shri J. Mukund, one of the then accused) in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case and that his client had been chargesheeted which culminated into Criminal Case No. 8460/1996 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. The trial in the said criminal case was over and the court vide order dated 07.06.2010 convicted Shri J. Mukund u/s 304A IPC amongst others. The case diary was imperative for the purposes of conducting and proceeding with the appeal filed against the order of conviction. The CPIO had denied the information stating that the CBI had been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005 vide Notification No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 and as such RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable to the CBI. The appellant reiterated that the said Notification did not provide blanket exemption.
5. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that as per Notification dated 09.06.2011 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Pubic Grievances& Pensions, the CBI had been included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 at S. No. 23. As per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Act did not apply to CBI. They stated that as per sub Section 3 of Section 172 Cr. P.C. " Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them, merely because they are referred to by the Court, but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such CIC/SB/A/2016/001252/MP 2 police officer, the provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 shall apply." They stated that as to the appellant's contention that the Notification dated 09.06.2011 was not in consonance with the letter and spirit of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the ratio of a case decided by the three Judges Bench vide judgement dated 04.12.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42 of 2001-N.C. Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others was applicable with regard to limitations of the National Human Rights Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is a 'unique expert body' is, no doubt entrusted with a very important function of protecting human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act." They further stated that the matter is pending before the appellate court. In view of above the case diary sought by the appellant cannot be divulged to the appellant.
6. The Commission during the hearing advised the appellant to give his submissions to the Commission within seven days with a copy to the respondents, and the respondents to file their counter submissions, if any, within ten days of the receipt of the fresh submissions from the appellant. The appellant did not send any submissions to the Commission till today i.e. 22nd June, 2017.
7. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that as per Notification dated 09.06.2011 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, the CBI had been included in the Second Schedule of CIC/SB/A/2016/001252/MP 3 the RTI Act, 2005 at S. No. 23 and as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CBI is excluded under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.. Moreover, sub Section 3 of Section 172 Cr. P.C. stipulates that "neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them, merely because they are referred to by the Court, but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply". Hence the copy of the case diary maintained by CBI in the matter of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case cannot be provided to the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Mridul Chakravarty, The Central Public Information Officer, 214, Arunachal Building, Central Bureau of Investigation, 19, Barakhamba Road, Anti Corruption-I, Plot No. 5-B, New Delhi-110001. 8th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
The First Appellate Authority, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption-I, Plot No. 5-B, 8th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.CIC/SB/A/2016/001252/MP 4