Central Information Commission
Mr. R Govindarajan vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 21 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000371/17851
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000371
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R. Govindarajan,
A9. Shiv Apartment
5, East Coast Road,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai - 600041.
Respondent : Mr. Ujjawal Kumar
Public Information Officer & AGM UCO BANK Human Resource Management Dept. HO-I, 10- BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 RTI application filed on : 29/07/2011 PIO replied : 14/09/2011 First Appeal : 10/10/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2011 Second Appeal received on : 27/01/2012 Sl. Queries Reply 1 "Certified Photocopies of all correspondence, departmental In the matter referred by you, Note(s) and other papers, related and leading to the sanction sanction for prosecution was granted by the Bank for prosecuting me in connection with alleged accorded on the basis of a Report irregularities in the account of M/s.Sri Meenakshi Tex at T.Nagar, received from CBI. Chennai Branch, wide the Sanction Order dated 21.04.2004 issued Since the information demanded by the then-General Manager, Operations- II Head Office, 2, India by you is exempted under Sec.8 Exchange Place, Kolkata." (i), (h), the Same is denied. Grounds for the First appeal:
Information has been denied.
Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
FAA and CPIO have not provided the requisite information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. R. Govindarajan on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio; Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar, Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-
Kolkata Studio;
The Appellant has sought copies of all documents based on which sanction for prosecution was given for prosecuting the Appellant. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) without giving Page 1 of 2 any reasons how Section 8(1)(h) would be attracted by the information sought. The PIO states that the prosecution has been launched and therefore he is claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h).
The Respondent has not been able to establish that disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114/2007- "13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."
As per Section 19(5) "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Denial of a citizen's fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens' rights. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
In view of this the PIO's claim to exemption is not upheld by the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 15 April 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2