Delhi High Court
Adarsh Kanojia vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2023
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula
$~112.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 11.10.2023
% LPA 696/2023 and CM APPL. 52742/2023
ADARSH KANOJIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, CGSC with Mr.
Ayush Bhatt, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed against a judgement dated 17.08.2023 passed
by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 12264 of 2019 titled „Adarsh
Kanojia v. CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs‟ (the "Writ Petition") wherein
the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition observing inter
alia that the rigours of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the "RTI Act")
ordinarily do not apply to the Intelligence Bureau (the "IB") i.e., an
organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act; and (ii)
mere allegations of corruption cannot be made grounds to direct the IB to
supply the information sought by the Appellant under the exception
LPA 696/2023 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
contained under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act(the "Impugned
Judgement").
2. The Appellant before this Court appeared in the Assistant Central
Intelligence OfficerGrade -II Examination, 2017 conducted by the IB on
15.10.2017 (the "Examination") vide roll number 23059397; and
registration ID: MHA111984471 for the recruitment of persons to the post
of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade -II ("ACIO-II"). On
19.01.2018, the results of the Examination were declared however, the name
of the Appellant did not feature in the list of successful candidates.
3. It is stated that certain irregularities in relation to the Examination
were reported by newspapers on (i) 21.10.2017; and (ii) 24.10.2017.
Furthermore, it had been pointed out that pursuant to the allegations of
irregularities, the IB came to cancel 4 (four) questions of the Examination.
Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an application dated 20.02.2018 under the
RTI Act seeking certain information in relation to the Examination; and the
Appellant‟s marksheet (the "RTI Application"). For ease of reference the
key particulars of the RTI Application are reproduced below:
"a. Please inform the marks obtained by me,
b. Please inform me the cut off marks,
c. Please provide me a certified copy of my OMR sheet,
d. Please provide a model answer key."
4. The RTI Application came to be transferred on 21.02.2018 from the
Department of Personnel and Training (the "DoPT") to the IB and,
accordingly, came to be registered as: INBRU/R/2018/80007. As no
LPA 696/2023 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
response was received qua the RTI Application, the Appellant preferred an
appeal dated 03.04.2018 under the RTI Act, which came to be registered as
INBRU/A/2018/60015 (the "First Appeal"). As no response was received
in relation to the First Appeal, the Appellant made representation(s) via
email(s) dated 26.04.2018; and 1.05.2018 to the Respondent Authority.
Aggrieved by the non-responsive nature of the Respondent Authority, the
Appellant preferred a second appeal dated 07.05.2018 before the Central
Information Commission (the "CIC") (the "Second Appeal").
5. Vide a letter dated 21.05.2018, the Appellant was informed that the
RTI Application was never received by the relevant vertical of the IB and,
accordingly, the Second Appeal was transferred to an identified branch of
Ministry of Home Affairs (the "MHA"). However, vide a letter dated
05.06.2018, the RTI Application came to be answered wherein it was stated
that the information sought under the RTI Application was exempt from
disclosure under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act (the "IB Response").
Unsatisfied with the IB Response, the Appellant filed a complaint dated
10.07.2018 with the CIC reiterating his request for information (the
"Complaint"). Subsequently, a letter dated 22.10.2018 came to be issued by
the Appellant to the CIC seeking inter alia the early hearing and disposal of
the Second Appeal.
6. Aggrieved by the delays, the Appellant herein filed a writ petition
bearing number W.P. (C) 7419 of 2019 titled „Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of
India &Anr.‟ wherein, this Court vide an order dated 23.07.2019, observed
that the CIC would consider the Complaint. Thereafter, the CIC passed an
order on 4.10.2021 wherein the CIC observed inter alia that (i) the IB is an
LPA 696/2023 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
organisation that is exempt from the rigors of the RTI Act on account of
being an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act;
and (ii) the nature of information sought does not pertain to (a) human rights
violations; or (b) allegations of corruption i.e., information which must be
disclosed by even exempted institutions under the proviso to Section 24 of
the RTI Act (the "CIC Order").
7. The CIC Order came to be challenged by way of the Writ Petition.
Pertinently, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed by way of the Impugned
Judgement. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgement, the Appellant has filed
this Appeal seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) set aside impugned Order 17.08.2023 passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12264/2019;
titled as ADARSH KANOJIA v. CPIO, Ministry of Home
Affairs (Annexure A:1) whereby Hon'ble Court not allowed the
setting aside of order dated 04.10.2019 passed by CIC under
the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and further
(b) direct the Ministry to provide the evaluated OMR sheet to
him to repose a trust/faith in the transparency of the
examination. Or in the alternative
(c) direct the respondent to deposit the OMR sheet with this
Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication and furnish the marks
secured by the last inducted SC category candidate i.e. cut off
marks for SC category;
(d) pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
8. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. Sudhir Sharma, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant is that suspicion of corruption
LPA 696/2023 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
is apparent in light of the news-articles dated (i) 21.10.2017; and (ii)
24.10.2017 regarding irregularities in the Examination, and accordingly, the
information sought by the Appellant is squarely covered under the exception
under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Central Government Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent(s) has adopted the
arguments canvassed by him before the Learned Single Judge.
10. This Court has heard the counsel(s) for the parties and perused the
record. The matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission with the
consent of the learned counsels‟ appearing on behalf of the parties.
11. The limited issue before this Court is whether, theRespondent was
justified in passing the CIC Order i.e., an order upholding the rejection of
the Appellant‟s RTI Application, on account of (i) the IB being an
organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act read with
Section 24 of the RTI Act; and (ii) the information failingto satisfy the
exception enshrined under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. For ease
of reference Section 24 of the RTI Act is reproduced below:
"24. Act not to apply in certain organisations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence
and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule,
being organisations established by the Central Government or
any information furnished by such organisations to that
Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded
under this sub-section:
LPA 696/2023 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in
respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the
information shall only be provided after the approval of the
Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding
anything contained in section 7, such information shall be
provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of
request.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other
intelligence or security organisation established by that
Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already
specified therein and on the publication of such notification,
such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the
case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid
before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such
intelligence and security organisation being organisations
established by the State Government, as that Government may,
from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the
allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not
be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in
respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the
information shall only be provided after the approval of the
State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything
contained in section 7, such information shall be provided
within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid
before the State Legislature.
12. Undoubtedly, the IB is an organisation specified under theSecond
Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act,
the IB is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act.Certain exceptions have
LPA 696/2023 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:17.10.2023
12:48:50
been carved out wherein the information requisitioned is strictly in relation
to (i) allegations of corruption; and / or (ii) allegations of human rights
violations. Admittedly, the present case does not satisfy the exception as the
underlying RTI Application (as more particularly identified in Paragraph 3
of this Judgement) does not seek information in relation to the category of
information as outlined above.
13. Furthermore, unsubstantiated submissions; and bald averments
alleging corruption cannot be made the bedrock of a direction from this
Court to an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI
Act. Accordingly, we find no infirmity with the Impugned Judgement
passed by the Learned Single Judge.
14. With the observations above, the LPA is dismissed.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2023 LPA 696/2023 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:17.10.2023 12:48:50