Central Information Commission
Ms. Shama Parveen vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha). on 26 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01069 dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Shama Parveen
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Facts:
Ms. Shama Parveen of Bijnor (UP) moved three applications of 8.12.06, 29.12.06 and 18.1.07 before CPIO Shri I.B. Karan, Director (Delhi), Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking information on a number of points as follows:
APPLICATION OF 8.12.06 "The information needed pertains to my above referenced PMO order and complaint (Against atrocities committed by Delhi Police), which is under consideration with the Ministry of Home Affairs, as per details given below:-
A) As regards aforementioned PMO order dated 29.8.2006 and complaint dated 21.8.2006 provide following information Para wise:
i. Certified copy of Action Taken Report/ Enquiry Report. ii. Certified copies of notings (Sheets) made by concerned person who have dealt the aforementioned PMO order and my complaint.
iii. Certified copy of statements/ material submitted by the Charged Police Officials, conspirator & abettors involved in said business of false implication.
iv. Daily progress report since the date these were received in MHA and till the date information is provided. v. Whether permission for filing complaints with international agencies has been granted by Hon'ble Prime Minister/ Home Secretary (Refer aforementioned complaints, which clearly shows that officials of Delhi Police have committed atrocities and that our Government and its agencies have persistently failed to protect the Basic Fundamental Rights of an ordinary non-influential family; since last 7 years). If permission has not been granted reasons for the same may be spelt out. vi. Whether MHA called the actual vigilance inquiry reports conducted by (a) Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld. ACP/ Vigilance and (b) Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, LD. Joint Commissioner of 1 Police/ Vigilance for examining them. If yes, kindly provide copy of these enquiry reports.
vii. Whether enquiry/ investigation of the cases has been made over to the NHRC/ CBI to investigate/ further investigate into the 7 false cases in question, so as to unearth the truth. If not, reasons for the same may be spelt out.
viii. What action has been initiated against the concerned police officials and authorities of Delhi Police who adopted dilatory tactics and exhibited dereliction of duties and committed perjury, so as to shield their erring and guilty police officials? If action has not been taken, reasons for the same may be spelt out.
ix. Whether Case(s) have been registered against the erring and guilty police officials, conspirators and others involved in the offences is/ are registered and enquiry/ investigation of these cases are made over to the NHRC/ CBI. If yes provide full details. If no, reasons for the same may be spelt out.
x. Whether any other FIRs are found registered against my family members besides the 7 FIRs stated in my complaints. If yes, provide details thereof.
xi. Provide full details as to what action has been taken to stop further harassment of my family members (S/Shri Aftab Ahmed, Zafaryab Ahmed, Dilshad Ahmed and Shahzad Ahmed R/o H. No. 235, Julahan, Behind Jail, Bijnor) through false implication.
If above referenced PMO order and complaint dated 21.8.2006 were dealt by different persons/ agencies of MHA in that case kindly provide above cited information separately.
B. Provide full and complete information as to what action has been taken regarding the following matters relating to my aforementioned complaints. If action regarding these matters has not been taken reasons and rationale for the same may be spelt out.
i) What action has been taken against the erring and guilty police officials who have adopted; cash for false implication torture incarceration humiliation and harassment like approach and thus has foisted 7 false cases on my family members after I registered a dowry case?
ii) Whether action should not be taken against the officials and authorities of Delhi Police who have failed to take pre-emptive action despite numerous complaints and representations were made to them 2 well in advance and brought our apprehensions of likelihood of false implication to their attention in person vide 154-CP dated 11.7.2002 and on many other occasions? (Refer Para 3 of my complaint).
iii) What action has been taken against the concerned Police officials who are responsible for adopting dilatory tactics and causing a delay of 3 years in taking a decision on withdrawing two under trail cases u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC as recommended by Shri Amarjeet Singh, ACP/ Vigilance vide his enquiry report dated 24.3.2003? Because of this delay on the part of Delhi Police we had been unnecessarily dragged before the court and after a lapse of three years i.e. on 10.3.2006 Commissioner of Police, Delhi directed DCPs North East and Crime and Railways to withdraw the cases u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC and thus petitioners were made to rush to Delhi from Bijnor to face avoidable trial (Refer Para 4 of the aforementioned complaint).
(iv) Why action should not be taken against concerned police officials of Vigilance Branch for repeatedly adopting dilatory tactics and thus failing to act on NHRC repeated directions vide NHRC Notice No. 3341/30/2002-2003-WC and its subsequent proceedings dated 14.6.2004 and 24.2.2005 and thus defied and frustrated the objective of directions passed by the NHRC? (Refer Para 5, Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 of my complaint).
(v) What action ahs been taken against the police officials responsible for inflicting torture on my brother while in police custody? (Report about said torture was also called by NHRC this has however not been filed by the Vigilance Branch deliberately so as to protect their erring and guilty police officials. (Refer Para 5 Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 of my complaints.
(vi) What action has been taken against the Enquiry Officer (Vigilance Branch) who did not complete enquiry with in the stipulated time ( three weeks) entrusted to him by The Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 12.4.05? (Refer Para 5 of my complaint as enquiry should have been completed din three weeks as per Delhi Police's Norms set for the discharge of function vide (Section 4(1) (b) (iv), Manual-4 as well as procedure followed in decision making process (Section 4 (1) (b) (iii) Manual-3).
3(vii) What action ahs been taken against concerned officials of Vigilance Branch for misleading Shri Gautam Kaul, IPS ("Retd.) Hon'ble Member, Public Grievances Commission. Govt. of NCT Delhi regarding moving applications u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC before the courts to withdraw the false cases? (Despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate that in fact any such application was filed by that date (23.3.2006). Refer Para 6 of my complaint.
(viii) What action has been taken against the officials of Vigilance Branch for filing misleading and self contradictory reports vide letter No. F. 24 (1) W/03/2946/HA CVC/ Vig dated 28.1.2004 before the Central Vigilance Commission and vide report No 24 (50)/Vig./03/10329/HANR/Vigilance dated 12.4.2006 before the National Commission for Women (Refer Para 7 pf complaint, annexure P-4 and Annexure P-
5).
(ix) Out of aforementioned two reports which report is authentic? (As these two self contradictory reports have been submitted by Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police before the CVC and NCW and were are keen to know which report is realistic and reliable.
(x) Whether scientific methods viz Lie Detector test, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping have been used in investigation/ enquiry of my complaint? (CP Delhi and Joint CP (Vigilance) Were time and again requested for using scientific methods to ascertain the truths as complaints are related to corruption, misuse of officials' position and the violation of human rights by the officials of Delhi Police).
(xi) Provide complete information, procedure, policies, norms and grounds for using said Scientific Methods in investigation/ enquiry of the offences in the day to day functioning in case i) offences offended by citizens and ii) when offenders are officials of Delhi Police.
(xii) Whether telephone and mobile call records of police officials associated with the said 7 false cases and conspirators of the cases have been obtained?
If yes, what action has been initiated against the erring police officials on the basis of cal records? (C. P. Delhi and Joint CP (Vigilance) were provided all necessary inputs and also on 12.4.2005 and 27.10.2005 regarding the same and thus we are keen to know as to what action ahs been taken.
4C) Provide full and complete information as to what action has been taken regarding the following matters relating to my aforementioned complaints. If action regarding these matters has not been taken reasons and rationale for same may be spelt out:
I) Re: Para 8 (1) of my complaint: IFR No. 69/2002, u/s 324,336, 341 and 34 IPC dated 25.2.2002 P.S. Nand Nagri, Dist. North East, Delhi:
a) What action has been taken against IO, Sanjay Kumar for implicating my brothers at the instance and in collusion and league with my husband and in-laws and deliberately filing charge sheet by ignoring material documents shown and submitted to him and sent to his superiors and for extracting Rs. 5000/-?
b) Provide copy of Commissioner of Police, Delhi order dated 10.3.2006 directing DCP/North East to withdraw the aforementioned case u/s 173 (8) Cr. P. C. for further investigation and file appropriate report in the Hon'ble Court.
If said direction was communicated through order sheet (notings) provide copy of notings.
c) Provide copies of application moved before the court u/s 173 (8) Cr. P. C. (As were still facing trail because application has not been moved so far. That because of dilatory tactics adopted by Delhi Police my family members have been made to rush to Delhi and had to face trial unnecessarily).
d) Provide noting sheets relating to further investigation.
e) Provide investigation report and daily progress report of further investigation conducted in pursuance to direction by the CP Delhi on 10.3.2006.
f) What action has been taken against the concerned investigator who deliberately filed self-serving application before the Hon'ble Court so as to frustrate the objective of direction passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi?
g) Whether call record of IO, SI Sanjay Kumar and conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain in the truth. If yes provide the copy of the same. (Necessary inputs were shown and submitted to CP Delhi, Joint CP (Vigilance) and Joint CP/ New Delhi Range).
II) Re: Para 8 (II) of my complaint: FIR No. 236/2002, u/s 452,506,341,307,392,395, 411, 120B, 34 IPC Arms Act dated 26.6.2002 P. S. Seelampur, Dist, North East Delhi:
A) What action has been taken against the Police officials (Local Police, DIU &Crime Branch) who harassed my family 5 members for three years by prolonging investigation of this case for three years? (Because finally police has to file untraced report as no case has been made out against my family members).
B) What action ahs been taken against the complainant of the case (conspirator) and witnesses (abettors)? Why these real culprits could not be brought to the book and police left them Scot-free by filing an untraced report?
C) Whether call record of the investigators of this case and conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain in the truth? If yes provide the copy of the same.
III) Re: Para 8 (III) of my complaint: FIR No. 151/2003/U/s 363/341 dated 28.2.2003 PS Seelampur, Dist North East:
a) What action has been taken against the conspirators and abettors of this case? While it has come on record that this false case and two other cases were also registered by them to harass and humiliate my family members so as to pressurize us to withdraw dowry case.
b) Whether call record of the investigator of this case and conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain the truth. If yes provide the copy of the same.
IV) Re: Para 8 (IV) of my complaint: FIR No. 712/2000, U/s 324, 34 IPC dated 10.8.2002 P. S. Uttam Nagar, Dist. West Delhi.
a) What action has been taken against IO HC Shri Raj Singh Dhankutt for implicating my father and brothers in collusion and league with concubine of my husband and in-laws and deliberately filing charge sheet by ignoring material documents shown and submitted to him and sent to his superior officers through registered mail and extracting Rs. 6000/-?
b) Provide copy of document which his showing that thi8s FIR was registered u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC in pursuance to the direction passed by Hon'ble Court.
c) Why this case was not withdrawn u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC for further investigation on the basis of Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld. ACP/ Vigilance enquiry report (concluded in March 2003) who found this case false and fabricated and recommended for further investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC by Crime Branch, Delhi?
d) Who was responsible for not taking appropriate action towards withdrawing this false case as recommended vide aforementioned enquiry report and thus made us to face 6 avoidable trails till 29.8.2003. (LD. Trail court acquitted)
e) Provide copy of documents (Alleged compromise) legitimacy of which led to a decision not to take action against the erring and guilty police officials.
V) Re: Para 8 (V) of my complaint: FIR No. 11/2003 u/s 376, 506 IPC, dated 5.1.2003 PS Kotwali, Dist North:
a) What action has been taken against the complainant, conspirators and Police officials involved in implicating in this false rape case?
b) What action has been taken against the erring police officials who severely tortured my brother at the behest of our opponent and made him to suffer incarceration in Tihar Jail from 22.1.2003 to 29.9.2003 (251 days)? When it has come on record that my brother blood group is O+ve while medical report of alleged rape victim disclose that person have A+ve blood group committed rape?
c) What action has been taken against IO, SI-Shri Ramesh Chand Meena, Crime Branch who extracted Rs. 47,500/- from my father?
d) What action ahs been taken by DCP/ Crime and Railways to move application before the Hon'ble court u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC for further investigation of the case and file appropriate report in the court on the direction passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 10.3.2006? (as we are still facing trail because application ahs not been moved so far.
That because of dilatory tactics adopted by Delhi Police my family members have been made to rush to Delhi and had to face trial unnecessarily).
e) Provide copy of Commissioner of Police, Delhi order dated 10.3.2006 directing DCP/ Crime and Railway to withdraw the aforementioned case u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC for furthe4r investigation and file appropriate report in the Hon'ble Court. If said direction was communicated through order sheet (notings) provide copy of notings.
f) Provide copies of application moved before the Hon'ble Court u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC.
g) Provide investigation report and daily progress report of further investigation conducted in pursuance to direction passed by the C. P. Delhi on 10.3.2006.
h) Whether call record of IO, SI Shri Ramesh Chand Meena and other police officials and conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain the truth. If yes provide the copy of same. (Necessary inputs were shown and submitted to CP Delhi, Joint CP (Vigilance) and Joint CP/ Crime).
7VI) Re: Para 8 (VI) of my complaint: FIR No. 52/2003 u/s 341,506, 34 IPC dated 28.2.2003 PS :Civil Lines Dist North:
a) What action ahs been taken against the conspirators and abettors of this false case whose name has come on record in police investigation itself as no evidence could be found to support the allegations of complainant?
b) What action ahs been taken against the police officials involved in lodging this false FIR?
c) Whether call record of the investigators of this case and conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain the truth? If yes provide the copy of the same.
VII) Re: Para 8 (VII) of my complaint; No Nil/2004 u/s 420/379 and 506 IPC dated 7.9.2004 PS: Uttam Nagar, Dist: West Delhi;
a) What is status of the investigation of this case? Provide enquiry report.
D) Seeking full and complete information regarding process, procedures and policies of Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India in the following matters.
i) Information/ procedure/ norms and grounds for granting 'immediate' interim relief'/ compensation on account of injury/ loss which the victims or the members of the family have suffered owing to the violation of human rights by public servants.
ii) Whether Ministry is considering to grant 'immediate interim relief'/ compensation in view of the peculiar circumstances in which Delhi Police placed the petitioner's family by implicating in seven false cases in defiance to order passed by the NHRC in case file no. 37638/24/2001-2002 directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for taking pre-emptive action against the threat of false implication. Gist of the plight and suffering undergone by my family is given in my complaints. (Petitioner entire family suffered financially, mentally social irreparable losses because of implication in 7 false and frivolous cases and had been humiliated in the eyes of the public as they have been unnecessarily arrested repeatedly i.e. in case FIR No. 712/2000/ 69/2002 and while in police custody in case FIR No. 11/2003 was subjected to 3rd degree torture and had to suffer incarceration from 22.1.2003 to 29.9.2003 (215 days) and have been harassed because in other cases Delhi Police grilled them frequently, which resulted in a loss of their reputation apart from the ignominy and damage to their health in addition to the 8 considerable expenditure incurred by them to defend themselves from the repeated false accusations and frequently rushing to Delhi from Bijnor. The victims of false implication have been dragged before the courts under the serious charges because of faulty/ shoddy investigation reports filed by the investigators of Delhi Police in connivance with the erring and guilty police officials and plotter of the cases. Despite there was a clear recommendation (since March 2003) by Ld. ACP/ Vigilance for further investigation/ reinvestigation of all the cases u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC. However Commissioner of Police, Delhi passed order of reinvestigation on 10.3.2006 after a lapse of three years and thus made to suffer to face avoidable trails in different courts).
iii) Information/ procedure/ norms and grounds on the basis of which M/o Home Affairs assigned the investigation/ enquiry of the complaints of corruption and human rights violations to the CBI and utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central Government or any State Government.
iv) The rationale and the reasons for not transferring the investigation of the cases to CBI for which numerous requests have been made since beginning.
E) Information/ procedure for filing a complaint with international agencies like "UNHRC" Amnesty International etc. I request to either provide the required information or transfer this application to concerned department/ organization, which can provide me with the required information.
APPLICATION OF 29.12.06 "The information needed pertains to my following complaints under consideration with Ministry of Home Affairs, as per details given below:
i) PMO ID No. 24/03/2006-PMP-1/229045 dated 29.8.06 addressed to the Home Secretary, M.H.A.
ii) My grievance petition dated 21.8.06 addressed to Home Secretary, MHA
a) Whether MHA has taken any action on my above referenced complaints?
b) If yes, please provide copies of the entire file and other related documents, records, memos, file 9 notings, log books, etc. that have been generated as a result.
c) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on the matter from the date of receiving complaint up to the date of supplying the information. This should include a summary of the movement of the file/matter along with the dates, name and designation of the person / officials handling my case and the details of which officer did what on what date.
d) If no action has been taken, please provide the reasons."
APPLICATION OF 18.1.07 "A) The information needed pertains to below cited two vigilance enquiries conducted on our complaints and furnishing clinching material documents including mobile and phone numbers of police officials and accused in dowry case showing nexus between them. Although we are r/o Bijnor (U.P) however, we extended utmost cooperation to the Enquiry Officers and time and again rushed to Delhi so as to reply/satisfy their queries and also shown and submitted material documents to them and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
a) Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld. ACP/Vigilance conducted enquiry in the year 2003 about implication in 5 false cases and
b) Shri Anil Kumar Sinha Ld. Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance conducted enquiry in the year 2005 about implication in 7 false cases.
i) As regards (a) and (b) please provide certified copies of the entire files and other related documents, records, memos, file notings, log books, statements of the erring police officials and plotters of these cases.
Telephone and Mobile call records of erring police officials and plotters of the said 7 cases etc. that have been generated as a result of the aforementioned enquiries.
ii) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on the aforementioned enquiries from the date of complaint / enquiry up to the date of supplying the information. This should include a summary of the movement of the files/matter along with the dates, name and designation of the persons / officials dealt the 10 aforementioned enquiry files and the details of which officer did what on what date.
iii) Please provide case wise information about the said 7 cases as to what action would be taken against the erring and guilty police officials (and plotters of the false cases) for extracting money from us, inflicting torture, victimizing my family members through implicating them in 7 false and frivolous cases and thus caused financial, mental, social irreparable losses and humiliation to my entire family? By when that action would be taken?
iv) If no action would be taken against erring police officials and plotters of the said 7 cases and or they have been given clean chit in said enquiries, please provide case wise and name wise reasons and rationale of the Enquiry Officers and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for doing so viz. leaving them scot-free?
v) On what basis investigation of 3 cases viz. 1) FIR No. 236 PS Seelampur, Distt. North East, 2) FIR No. 52/2003 PS Civil Lines, Distt. North and 3) FIR No. 11/2003 PS Kotwali, Distt. North was transferred to the Crime Branch?
vi) Please provide entire records including file notings that have been generated in transferring the investigation of aforesaid 3 cases to the Crime Branch.
vii) On what basis the Commissioner of Police, Delhi passed order dt. 10.3.2006 viz directed DCPs/North East and Crime and Railways to withdraw the under trial two cases viz. FIR No. 69/2002 PS Nand Nagri, Distt. North East and F.I.R. No. 11/2003 PS Kotwali, Distt. North u/s 173(8)CrPC from the Court?
viii) Please provide entire records order including noting sheets related to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi order dt. 10.3.2006.
ix) Reasons and rationale for not withdrawing the under trial case FIR No. 712/2000 u/s 324, 34 IPC Dt. 10.8.2000 PS Uttam Nagar, Distt. West Delhi u/s 173(8) CrPC for further investigation as per findings of vigilance enquiry report submitted by Shri Amarjeet Singh Ld. ACP/Vigilance in March, 2003.
x) Please give the names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take action on the findings of the aforementioned vigilance enquiry reports?
11xi) What action would be taken against these officials for not doing their work and thereby compelled to face avoidable trails in different courts and thus causing mental, social and financial harassment to us? By when would that action be taken?
B) Please provide following information (I to vi) regarding the complaints and representations listed in the table cited below:
i) Whether Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police has taken any action on the complaints/ representations mentioned in the table cited below?
ii) IF yes, please provide information on each of the said complaints/ presentations. Please provide copies of the entire file and other related documents, records, memos, file notings, log books, telephone and mobile call records etc that have been generated as a result of these complaints/ representations.
iii) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on each of the complaints/ representations form the date of receiving complaint up to the date of supplying the information. This should include a summary of the movement of the file/ matter along with the dates, name and designation of the person/ officials handling (Dealt) these complaints and the details of which officer did what on what date.
iv) If no action has been taken, please provide the reasons.
v) If call records of telephone and mobile numbers furnished along with were not taken, pleas provide the reasons.
vi) If any of the above complaint/ representation was forwarded to any other Unit/ Branch of Delhi Police, please provide the reasons and rationale.
Date Particulars of complaints/ Representations (submitted Date of by my father and brothers S/Shri Aftab Ahmed, Dilshad complaint/ Ahmed, Shahzad Ahmed and by me Smt. Shama representation Parveen)
1. Complaint along with material documents shown and 25.4.2005 submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance
2. Complaint along with material documents shown and 25.5.2005 submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance
3. Complaint along with material documents furnished 8.6.2005 before the Joint CP/ Vigilance.
4. Complaint along with material documents furnished 16.6.2005 before the Joint CP/ Vigilance 12
5. Complaint along with material document furnished 17.6.2005 before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
6. Complaint along with material documents furnished 24.9.2005 before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
7. Complaint along with material documents furnished 27.10.2005 before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
8. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 9.4.2005 regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of huge bribe, shown and submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance.
9. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 24.4.2003 regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of huge bribe shown and submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance.
10. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 12.5.2003 regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of huge bribe shown and submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance.
11. E-mail to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi 22.12.2006
12. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 30.10.2006
13. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 5.9.2006
14. The Joint CP/ Vigilance 5.9.2006
15. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 27.12.2006
16. The DCP/ Vigilance 13.12.2006
17. Sp. CP/ Vigilance 27.12.2006
18. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 27.12.2006
19. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 30.10.2006
20. Request letter to the Joint CP/ Vigilance/ 3.4.2006
21. Central Vigilance Commission vide its order No. 003- 29.6.2006 DLH-010/28505 dated 29.6.2006 had sent our complaint to the Joint CP/ Vigilance for appropriate action and needful justice in the matter.
22. On 3.6.2003 a complaint along with a Medical 3.6.2003 Certificate of medical examination conducted while in police custody clearly shown injuries suffered due to 3rd degree torture inflicted on my brother Shri Dilshad Ahmed while in police custody in false case No. FIR No. 11/2003 u/s 376,506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Dist North was shown and submitted to the then Joint CP/ Vigilance.
It was specifically submitted vide said complaint to take prints out of incoming and out going call log of mobile no. 9811865516 so as to confirm nexus between the police officials and plotter of the cases and to bring the erring and guilty police officials and other to justice.
23. NHRC Notice No. 3341/30/2002-2003-WC 7.2.2003 13 C) In pursuance to Central Vigilance Commission's direction Addl. DCP/ Vigilance had filed a report vide letter No. F. 24 (1) W/03/2946/HA-CVC/Vig.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire files and other related documents, records, memos, file notings, log books, statements of the erring police officials and plotters of these cases. Telephone and Mobile call records of erring police officials and plotters of the said 7 cases etc that have been generated as a result of enquiry conducted for furnishing aforementioned reply before the CVC.
ii) Please provide me a Daily Progress REpor5t on the aforementioned enquires from the date of complaint/ enquiry up to the date of supplying the information. This should include a summary of the movement of the file/ matter along with the dates, name and designation of the person/ officials dealt my case and the details of which officer did what on what date.
D) On 30.11.2005 my brother Shri Shahzad Ahmed had sent a complaint along with material documents to the Joint CP/ Vigilance requesting enquiry against erring and guilty police officials named in the complaint. I came to know that instead of enquiring into the complaint, this complaint was merely forwarded to the DCP/ North West. When the complaint was made against officials of Crime Branch, North East and North.
i) Please provide reasons and rationale for forwarding the said complaint to the DCP/ North West. How DCP/ North West comes into picture?
ii) Please give the names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take action on said complaint and who have not done so? So as to protect their erring and guiltily police officials and in this way erring police officials they were given opportunity to destroy the evidences furnished in the complaint and hence subverted the justice.
iii) What action would be taken against these officials for no doing their work and exhibiting aphetic approach towards the citizen's complaints? By when would that action be taken?
E) Re: Case No. PGC/2005.174/33 DP: Non compliance of order/ direction passed by Shri Gautam Kaul, IPS (Retd) 14 Hon'ble Member, Public Grievances Commission vide PGC's proceedings dated 3.2.2006 and 23.3.2006.
Shri B. M. Sharma, Deputy Secretary, PGC vide order/ direction letter F. No. PGC/ 2006/174/200 11185 dated 20.9.2006 called comments from Joints Commissioner of Police/ Vigilance on the subject matter.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire file and other related documents/ records, memos, file notings, log books that have been generated as a result of aforementioned order of the PGC.
ii) If no reply has been filed, please provide the reasons.
F) Regarding President's Secretariat UD No. E-6/US (P)/09/2006 dated 15.9.2006 and Deputy Secretary (Home) Letter No. F. 14/77/2006/HP-II/7246 dated 20.10.2006 (complaint was against officials and authorities of Delhi Police viz Vigilance Branch, Crime Branch, Distt North East, Distt West and Distt North.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire files and other related documents, records, memos, file notings, log books etc that have been generated as a result of enquiry conducted by Vigilance Branch in pursuance to above referenced endorsements.
ii) If Vigilance Branch has not conducted enquiry, please provide reasons and rationale of the same.
iii) Please provide reasons and rationale of O/o CP Delhi and Vigilance Branch for forwarding the complaint to DCP/ North East (only) when complaint was against officials and authorities of Vigilance Branch, Crime Branch, Distt North east, Distt West and Distt North."
These applications were all passed on to the Office of Dy. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) Delhi, which were respectively received on 15.12.06, 19.1.07 and 22.1.07. The response Ms Parveen received to her request of 8.12.06 from Ms. Shalini Singh, PIO and DCP (Vigilance) was simply that the matter was under examination. However, after she has moved a first appeal on 17.2.07, a detailed response was received from Shri M.R. Gothwal, PIO & DCP (Vig) as follows:
"The said complaints were examined in this office and a reply in detail was sent to the Under Secretary to the GOI, MHA, New Delhi 15 vide No. 10131/HA-MHA/Vig. Dated 20.3.2007. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your information."
Upon this Ms Parveen moved another first appeal on 14.4.07 before Shri R.P. Upadhyaya Addl. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) on the grounds that "the information provided is vague and not in line with the information sought point wise/ Para wise I am therefore constrained to appeal to you for the required information" which, however, was dismissed by Appellate Authority Shri R.P. Upadhyaya on 8.5.07 in the following words:
"As per the records, in his order dated 22.3.2007, PIO/ Vigilance has sent to you a copy of a detailed reply sent by him to Under Secretary to the GOI, MHA, New Delhi vide no. 10131/HA-MHA/Vig dated 20.3.2007. This is a very comprehensive reply and has all the information asked for by you in your appl8ication from time to time. There has been no effort to withhold any information from you. All the information concerning the Vigilance Branch has been provided. There is no ground in the appeal to interfere with the orders of PIO/ Vigilance."
On not receiving a response on the application of 29.12.06 Ms. Shama Parveen moved a first appeal of 17.2.07 before Addl. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) who in his order of 1.6.07 stated as follows:
"A copy of the detailed reply was also sent to you by PIO/Vig. Vide No. 10265/RTI/Vig dated 22.3.07. But you have stated in your appeal that you have not received any response from PIO/Vig. A copy of the report is again being sent to you. I hope this will answer all your queries."
The Appellate Authority has, therefore, considered the PIO's response to the application of 8.12.06 as the full response.
Finally, in her request of 18.1.07 Ms. Shama Parveen received a more detailed response from Ms. Shalini Singh PIO (Vig.) seeking to answer all questions as follows:
"A The copy of Vigilance enquiry conducted by Shri Amarjit Singh, ACP/Vig. has already been sent to you vide this office No. 27773/RTI/Vig. Dated 15.9.2006. However, a copy of the same and a copy of the details of the scrutiny of 16 Vigilance enquiry report conducted by the then Jt. CP/Vigilance Shri A. K. Sinha is enclosed. On the basis of Vigilance Enquiry report the investigation of case FIR No. 236 PS Seelampur, East Distt. FIR No. 52/03 PS Civil Lines, North Distt. & FIR No. 11/33 PS Kotwali, North Distt. were transferred to Crime Branch (copy of letter enclosed). On recommendation of PGC after approval of CP, Delhi, DCPs North East Distt. & Crime & Railways filed applications u/s 173(3) Cr.P.C. in the concerned courts in case FIR No. 69/02 P.S. Nand Nagri and 11/03 P.S. Kotwali respectively.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be furnished to you as per Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have had there depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to be protected, as was held by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr. Sharma vs. Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006 B. Remarks may be seen on complaint / representation filed by you. Shahzad Ahmed & Aftab Ahmed:-
Sr. Particulars of Date of Remarks.
No. Complaint complaint
/representation
submitted by Sh.
Aftab Ahmed,
Shahzad Ahmed,
Shama Parveen
1 Complaint along with 25.4.05 Complaint sent to
material document DCP/West vide No.
shown and submitted to 14985/HA-SR dt. 7.5.05
Jt. CP/Vig.
2 Complaint along with 25.5.05 Not received in this office.
material document
shown and submitted to
Jt. CP/Vig.
3 Complaint along with 8.6.05 Complaint sent to DCP
material document West Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20166/HA-SR dt. 20.6.05.
CP/Vig.
4 Complaint along with 16.6.05 Sent to DCP/North-East
material document Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20711/HA/NDR/Vig. Dt.
CP/Vig. 24.6.05 for n.a.
17
5. Complaint along with 17.6.05 Sent to DCP/North-East
material document Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20711/HA/NDR/Vig. Dt.
CP/Vig. 24.6.05 for n.a.
6 Complaint along with 24.9.05 Not received in this office.
material document
furnished before Jt.
CP/Vig.
7 Complaint along with 27.10.05 Complaint sent to
material document DCP/West Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 35385 HR-SR dt. 10.11.05
CP/Vig.
8 Complaint against Sh. 9.4.05 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
9 Complaint against Sh. 24.3.03 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
10 Complaint against Sh. 12.5.03 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
11 E-mail to Commissioner 22.12.06 Complaint had become the
of Police, Delhi part of Vigilance Enquiry
12 The Commissioner of 30.10.06 This complaint/application
Police, Delhi. was not received from O/O
CP Delhi the same has
been received from
Addl.CP/HQs and reply has
been sent to you vide No.
32531/RTI/Vig. Dt. 8.11.06
13 The Commissioner of 5.9.06 Complaint had become the
18
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
14 The Jt. CP/Vig. 5.9.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
15 The Commissioner of 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
16 DCP/Vig. 13.12.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
17 Spl.CP/Vig. 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
18 The Commissioner of 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
19 The Commissioner of 30.10.06 This complaint/application
Police, Delhi. was not received from O/O
CP Delhi the same has
been received from
Addl.CP/HQs and reply has
been sent to you vide No.
32531/RTI/Vig. Dt. 8.11.06
20 Request to 3.4.06 Complaint had become the
Jt.CP/Vigilance part of Vigilance Enquiry
21 Central Vigilance 29.6.06 Reply sent to you vide this
Commission vide its Office No. 27773/RTI Vig.
order No. 003-DLH- Dt. 15.9.06
010/28505 dt. 29.6.06
had sent their complaint
to the Jt.CP/Vig.
Appropriate action and
needful / justice in the
matter.
22 On 3.6.03 a complaint 3.6.03 Not received in this office.
along with a medical
certificate of medical
examination conducted
in Police Custody clearly
showing injuries suffered
due to third degree
torture inflicted on your
brother Sh. Dilshad
Ahmed while in police
custody in false case
number FIR No. 11/03
u/s 376, 506 IPC PS
Kotwali, North Distt. was
shown and submitted to
the then Jt.
CP/Vigilance.
19
It was specifically
submitted vide said
complaint to take prints
out of incoming and
outgoing calls log of
mobile No. 9811865516
so as to confirm nexus
between the police
officials and plotter of the
cases and to bring the
erring and guilty police
officials and other to
justice.
23 NHRC notice No. 7.2.03 The reply sent to you vide
3341/30/2002-2003-WC. this office letter No.
13082/RTI/Vig. Dated
11.5.06 under
RTI/Vigilance.
C. Photo copy of letter No. F.24(1)W/03/2946/ HA/CVC-Vig.
Dated 28.1.2004 is enclosed herewith.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be provided as per Sec.
8(1)(e) & (g) of RTI Act as it contains references to peoples, who gave information or have had their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities needs to be protected as was held in case of Vinod Kumar vs. Delhi Police by CIC in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006.
D. Your brother's complaint dated 20.11.2005 was sent to DCP/North West Distt. as the Crime Branch office was at that time located at in the building of PS Prashant Vihar which was in the North West Distt. The same was then sent by DCP North West Distt. to DCP/C&R vide his office letter No. 1381-Complt9NWD) dated 11.2.2006 for further necessary action.
E. As per the recommendation of PGC in Para 9 (copy enclosed), after approval of CP/Delhi the applications had been filed u/s 173(8) CrPC North East Distt. and C&R in the concerned court. Already a reply was sent in this regard (copy enclosed) to PGC.20
F. Reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter No. 34772/RTI/Vig. Dated 21.11.2006 under RTI Act. Copy of same is enclosed.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be furnished to you as per Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act 2005, as these persons have had their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to be protected, as was held by CIC in case of Vinod Kr. Sharma vs. Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006."
However, not satisfied Ms. Shama Parveen moved her first appeal on 14.3.07 on the following grounds:
"the information provided is vague, incomplete and not in line with the information sought point wise / Para wise, I am therefore constrained to appeal to you for the required information."
With regard to the withholding of information she specifically pleaded as follows:
"Since information solicited concerns human rights and corruption, therefore, information sought cannot be kept confidential, as was held by CIC in case of Shri Dharmendra Sharma vs. Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00535.
Thus the information sought by the appellant, even if attracting exemption of Sec. 8(1)(e) or Sec. 8(1)(g) will be governed by the provision of sec. 8(2), which allows disclosure even protected information. The Ld. PIO has not reflected on the human rights and corruption aspects which the applicant has highlighted in RTI request itself.
I, therefore, appeal to kindly provide certified copies of entire information requested vide point No. (i) & (ii)."
In this appeal appellant has examined in detail the answers received. However, in his order of 24.4.07 first appellate authority dismissed the appeal in the following words:
"Perusal of record shows that you have been provided a copy of Vigilance enquiry report of the enquiry conducted by Shri Amarjit Singh, ACP/Vig. As well as a copy of details of scrutiny of Vigilance enquiry report conducted by the then Jt. CP/Vig. Action taken on 21 the Vigilance enquiry report has also been intimated to you. Your contention that the information sought by you in subsequent paras of your application will be governed by section 8(2) of the RTI Act is untenable. Section 8(2) says "a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests." This section does not relate to human rights or corruption, as claimed by you. Denial of information sought by you by PIO/Vig. is justified as this could disclose the identities of persons who cooperated with the law enforcing agencies and may jeopardize their safety.
Your complaints of different dates mentioned in your application were sent to different PIOs as mentioned in the letter sent to you by PIO/Vigilance. The record of the office of Jt. CP/Vig. Has also been got checked and your complaints mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 22 have not been received in that office.
After perusal of all the documents, I am of the opinion that PIO/Vig. has provided you all the information that could be provided under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
The appeal was heard on 26.12.2008 through video conferencing. The following are present:
Appellant (AT NIC STUDIO, BIJNOR, U.P.) Ms. Shama Parveen Sh. Aftab Ahmad (Father of appellant) Sh. Shahzad Ahmad (Brother of appellant) Respondents (AT CIC STUDIO, NEW DELHI) Sh. Rajesh Kumar, DCP (Vig) Sh. Krishan Pal HC (Ministerial) Shri Shahzad Ahmad, authorized representative of appellant Ms. Shama Parveen submitted that the questions asked were specific and are not all answered in the enquiry report. Shri Rajesh Kumar, present DCP(V) on the other hand referred to the response given on 22.2.07 in which each of the complaint moved by appellant have infact been addressed and submitted that the enquiry report covers the points at issue.
DECISION NOTICE 22 Having examined the records and heard the parties, we find that what has been provided is a certified copy of the action taken report / enquiry report which accounts for only question A-1 of the application of 8.12.06. Other questions flowing from the same have not been addressed pointwise in any of the three applications. The RTI Act is specific in sec. 7 sub sec. (9) in requiring that "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question". It was, therefore, incumbent upon the CPIO to answer each of the questions raised unless he sought to provide the information in a form other than what had been sought but for this good reason had to be given.
We also find from the reply of 22.2.07 that many of the questions asked have been referred to different Dy. Commissioners of Police. Whereas this indeed is the required practice u/s 6 sub sec. (3) of the RTI Act read with sec. 5 sub sec. (4), if the application has been so transferred by the CPIO of the same department it becomes the responsibility of that CPIO to ensure also that replies are given, which has not happened in this case. Besides, in refusing part of the information sought CPIO has stated that this "cannot be furnished to you as per Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have had there depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry. cited exemption." In this case the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.3114/2007 - Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors is of relevance, since it deals with the application of sec. 8 sub-section (1) as follows:
12. "The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in 23 the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
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 self. 1 "
Therefore, it is not enough to simply cite a clause to seek exemption. Reasons for so doing will have to be explained. Besides, it is open to the CPIO to exercise severability as described in Sec 10 sub-section (1) of the Act requiring that "access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains such information" The CPIO may therefore proceed in the manner prescribed in Sec 10 sub-section (2) For the above reasons, the orders in appeal in all three cases are set aside. The DCP (Vig) Shri Rajesh Kumar will now provide a pointwise answer in the case of all three applications. If the answers are to be found in the Vigilance Enquiry Report, reference may be made to the specific part of that report where the answers are to be found in answering the questions raised by appellant in her three applications. This he will do within one month of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. More time is being given to CPIO for this purpose so as to ensure that he is able to collect the information required from DCPs to whom the applications had been transferred for responding and to exercise his authority u/s 10 sub-section (2).
We also find that in case of the application of 8.12.06 which was received in the office of D.C.P. on 15.12.06, a response has only gone on 22.1.07 when in fact it had become due by 15.1.07. The request of 29.12.06 had not been 1 Emphasis ours 24 responded to by the CPIO. Whereas we are willing to accept that because there was an impression in the Department that a reply to the application of 29.12.06 stood given by the response to the application of 8.12.06, we cannot accept the excuse of DCP Shri Rajesh Kumar made in the hearing that the delay occurred because the Vigilance Office is scattered. It is the business of every public authority to ensure that its systems are made commensurate with the law, not vice versa. For this reason, Ms. Shalini Singh then PIO and DCP (Vig.) will show cause why she should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 250/- a day from 15.1.07 to 22.1.07 amounting to Rs. 1750/-. She may do this in writing by 20.1.2009 or by personal appearance before us on 20.2.2009 at 4.00 p.m. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.12.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26.12.2008 25