Central Information Commission
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 16 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/124399
Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 16.01.2024
Date of Decision : 16.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.01.2022
PIO replied on : 08.03.2022
First Appeal filed on : 19.03.2022
First Appellate Order on : 28.04.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 31.05.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.01.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide the True copy of report/documents on the basis of which the order No. I-11034/18/2011-15-IV dated 4th April 2011 was passed handing over the Investigation of Malegaon Blast case 2006 to NIA."
The CPIO vide letter dated 08.03.2022 furnished reply as under :
With reference to your request, it is stated that the investigation of the scheduled offences is entrusted to NIA, as per sections of NIA Act, 2008 on the basis of information from State government or other sources. Disclosure of the documents relied on in the process of approval is likely to impede the process of further investigation and prosecution-Also there is likelihood of revealing the identity of the officers who have dealt with the process of approval, and thus may endanger the life and physical Safety of such officer. Such information sought is exempt from disclosure under subsection (g) and (h) of section 8 of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the Same cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2022. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2022 stated that the Page 1 of 5 Appeal is different from the original RTI request and hence, appeal is not admissible.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 10.01.2024 has been received from CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present via VC Respondent: Mr. Dharmender, MHA.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has been incorrectly denied under Section 8(1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. He stated that he has sought the information relating to reports/documents on the basis of which order No. I- 11034/18/2011-15-IV dated 4th April 2011 was passed handing over the Investigation of Malegaon Blast case 2006 to NIA. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the Mumbai blast case and information sought is necessary to prove himself innocent. He contended that MHA is not exempted from the purview of the RTI Act and section 24 would not be applicable in the instant case.
The Respondent stated that the applicant had sought reports/documents on the basis of which, the Malegaon Blast 2006 case was handed over to NlA. He submitted that the investigation of the scheduled offences is entrusted to NIA, as per sections of NIA Act, 2008 on the basis of information from State government or other sources. He averred that providing such information would disclose identity of the sources of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes and therefore inter-alia exempted under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act,2OO5 as disclosure of the said information to the Appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of officers. He averred that that disclosure of information sought would jeopardise the national security and same is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. He also stated that the information sought by the Appellant is related to intelligence agencies viz NIA which is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that the Appellant is a death row convict, who is currently in the Central Prison, Nagpur, Maharashtra. The Appellant has sought reports/documents on the basis of which, the Malegaon Blast 2006 case was handed over to NIA. Commission observes that as submitted by the PIO the disclosure of information sought i.e. documents/reports would endanger the life Page 2 of 5 or physical safety of officers. Commission also notes that as submitted by the PIO the disclosure of information sought would also jeopardise the national security.
A reference in this regard can be made to the Delhi High case titled as Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, MHA [W.P(C) 10258/2020] dated 3rd February 2023, wherein the same Applicant had sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case and copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2009 regarding investigation in 7/11 bomb blast case. The Delhi High Court inter-alia observed as under:-
27. There can be no doubt that terrorist activities affect the integrity of India as also the safety and security of its citizens. The fact that one particular investigation qua a particular individual may have been concluded would not in any manner mean that all the investigations have concluded finally. The Mumbai blasts which are the subject matter of the reports, were one of the worst terror attacks on India, leading to hundreds of deaths and hundreds of injured persons. Thus, reports/dossiers on such investigations can have a major bearing on India's security, sovereignty and integrity.
28. On the one hand, the Petitioner seeks access these reports on the basis of right to information being a convict in the 7/11 bomb blast case. On the other hand, the Respondents are interested in safeguarding the safety of the citizens and the security of the country.
The exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is enacted keeping in mind cases of this nature.
29. Reports and dossiers by intelligence authorities relating to terrorist activities, which are subject matter of investigation are barred and thus, cannot be disclosed under RTI especially, if they compromise the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The larger public interest is in protecting the safety and security and not in disclosing such reports."
As regards the contention of the Respondent regarding application of Section 24 of RTI Act, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Vs. CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, WP (C) 9773/2018 dated 16.01.2019, wherein it was observed as under:
"18. There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty. It is the petitioner' s case that he is deprived of his liberty on the basis of false evidence and the information available in the report placed before the Home Minister would indicate the same.
19. In view of the above, there can be little doubt that the petitioner's application seeking review report does pertain to an allegation of human rights violation. The gravamen of his allegation is that he has been Page 3 of 5 falsely implicated by the respondent despite the respondent having information that the petitioner was not involved in 7/11 blast case.
20. The CIC has held that the query raised by the petitioner failed to satisfy either of the essential preconditions of being related to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. This Court is of the view that the said conclusion is erroneous, as the information does relate to violation of human rights.
21. It is also necessary to observe that in terms of second proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, the information sought for by the petitioner can be provided to him only on the approval of the CIC Clearly, the CIC would have to examine whether such information is relevant and material. If the CIC on examination of the material finds that it is not so, the approval for disclosure of such information would not be granted.
22. In addition to the above, it is also necessary to observe that merely because such information regarding allegations of corruption and human rights violation is not excluded from the purview of Section 24(1) of the Act, does not necessarily mean that the said information is required to be disclosed. The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act."
In view of foregoing, the exemption provided under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act will not be applicable in the instant case. The Commission, however, agrees with the submissions of the respondent that disclosure of the information sought would identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, ensuring the safety of the citizens and the security of the country is important and the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is enacted keeping in mind cases of this nature. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided to the Appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5