Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ved Prakash Arya vs Central Jail Tihar on 24 April, 2019

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CJTHR/A/2017/131421

Shri. Ved Prakash Arya                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS
                                       बनाम
PIO, Jail Supdt. Jail No. 3, O/o Director                ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
General (Prisons), Prisons HQ, Tihar
Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058


PIO, O/o Director General (Prisons),
Prisons HQ, Tihar Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058

Through:
Shri Tariq Salam, PIO
Ms. Sangeeta Chouhan, Dy. Sup. Legal Branch


Date of Hearing                        :    22.04.2019
Date of Decision                       :    22.04.2019
Information Commissioner          :         Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   19.12.2016
PIO replied on                          :
First Appeal filed on                   :   01.02.2017
First Appellate Order on                :   02.03.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   05.05.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 19.12.2016 seeking details of the casewherein Shri Virendra Kumar Verma and Shri Narendra KumarVerma were allegedly lodged in Tihar Jail and the period for which they were in Tihar Jail.The PIO rejected the request citing bar under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Appellant filed First Appeal dated 01.02.2017. FAA order dated

02.03.2017 stated as follows: Page 1 of 2

"I am of the view that information can't be supplied to the appellant as section 6 of RTIAct, 2005 provides that information can only be asked by a citizen of India. No one can ask information on behalf of any other citizen".

Feeling aggrieved the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant is absent despite service of notice of hearing. The Respondent is present and heard. The PIO states that details of under trail prisoners as well as convicts are personal and any revelation of the identity of the same is barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission concurs with the stand of the PIO. An accused is not presumed guilty unless proven to be guilty through the process of law. Revelation of details or identity of an under-trial prisoner to a third party may cause prejudice to the very presumption of his/her innocence. Similarly, a convict may be undergoing sentence for the wrong committed against society at large, however the Indian criminal justice system also recognizes the reformative aspect of the sentence. Revelation of identity of a convict may jeopardize and thwart the reformative process of the convict. While the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (24.08.2017 - SC) : MANU/SC/1044/2017 has acknowledged the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right, the Commission sees no reason to deprive any under-trial or convict lodged in jail of his cherished right to privacy. No case of larger public interest warranting disclosure has been pleaded by the Appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of PIO.

The Appeal is dismissed.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 2 of 2