Central Information Commission
Mr.C J Karira vs Cbi on 31 October, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2012/000374
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 31 October 2012
Date of decision : 31 October 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri C J Karira,
Plot No. 26, Road No. 1,
Balamari Society, Mahendra Hills,
Secunderabad - 500 026.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Policy Division, 27, North Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri M.R. Kadole, AIG (P), CBI, was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Complainant was present in Hyderabad studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In his complaint to the CIC, the Complainant has submitted that he had sent an RTI application addressed to the CPIO of the CBI by speed post. The envelope containing the RTI application was returned to him by the postal authorities with the remark that the addressee refused to accept it. Thereafter, he had brought this matter to the notice of the Director CBI, following which the CPIO responded to him though without furnishing any information. The CPIO had claimed exemption for the CBI from the provisions of the Right to CIC/SM/C/2012/000374 Information (RTI) Act on the basis of the notification of the Central Government placing it in the Second Schedule to that Act.
4. During the hearing, the Complainant reiterated his demands. He also submitted that he should be compensated with an amount of Rs. 153, the expenses he incurred just because his RTI application was not accepted. He argued that the information he had sought would clearly fall within the proviso to Section 24 since it was about the number of cases in which the CBI had sought permission/sanction for prosecution, obviously involving allegations of corruption. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the CBI was fully compliant with the demands of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and accepted all RTI applications without any discrimination. He argued that it would not be right to hold that the CBI should entertain every RTI request seeking information on allegations of corruption as this would render its inclusion in the Second Schedule totally infructuous. He submitted that since the CBI, by and large, investigated cases involving allegations of corruption, it would end up entertaining almost every RTI application and this could not be the objective of excluding certain organisations from the purview of the RTI Act. In his view, the expression 'allegations of corruption' in the proviso implies such allegations against the employees of the exempt organisation only and not to every case of allegations of corruption. The Respondent also requested for some more time so that he could submit a written submission in the matter. We, however, cannot accept this request because, in our view, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act are quite clear.
5. The Complainant has made the following demands:
CIC/SM/C/2012/000374 i. To enquire into the refusal by the CBI to accept the envelope containing the RTI application;
ii. to enquire into the alleged disbanding of the RTI structure by the CBI after the notification of the Central Government;
iii. to direct the CBI to reinstate the RTI structure;
iv. to remand the case back to the CPIO to consider within the scope of the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act; and v. To compensate him by an amount of Rs. 153, being the expenses incurred by him due to the refusal to accept the envelope containing the RTI application.
6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as the submissions made before us. Soon after the CBI was included in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, for some time, the Receipt and Dispatch Section in the CBI had returned several RTI applications without opening the envelopes possibly under the impression that the CBI was no longer required to even entertain RTI applications. The CIC had taken up this matter with the Director CBI who had promptly intervened in the matter and ensured that all RTI applications were duly received and acted upon within the provisions of the RTI Act. Ever since, we have not come across any other case in which the envelope containing the RTI application has been returned by the authorities in the CBI. The present case may be one of those few cases which had been returned by the Receipt and Dispatch Section in the early days after the notification was issued. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to enquire into this matter.
7. The main issue to be decided in this case is whether an RTI application CIC/SM/C/2012/000374 containing allegations of corruption should be entertained by the CPIO of the CBI under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act or not. The proviso reads as follows: provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection. The wording of the proviso is quite clear. It casts an obligation on the CPIO of the exempted organisation to entertain all requests for information pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. It does not make any distinction between the exempted organisations on the basis of the functions they perform nor between allegations of corruption on the basis of whether it is made against the employees of the exempt organisation or against others. It is true that the CBI is primarily responsible for investigating into all cases of corruption by public servants of the Central Government. Therefore, most of the information held by it would have a nexus with allegations of corruption. It is also true that the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act would make it necessary for the CPIO to entertain all such RTI applications, rendering the exclusion of the organisation from the operation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act almost pointless. This cannot be helped as the law is quite clear; this particular section does not exclude the exempt organisations from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act completely. It is a qualified exemption. It is possible that in some of the security and intelligence organisations, the information held, by and large, may not have much nexus with either allegations of corruption or with human rights violation. By its very nature, the CBI is different from those organisations in the sense that it primarily deals with cases involving allegations of corruption. To that extent, the benefit of the exemption available to other such organisations would not obviously be available to the CBI as most of the information held by it would be covered by the above proviso. Therefore, there CIC/SM/C/2012/000374 is no escape from the fact that the CBI will have to consider all RTI requests for information which pertains to any allegations of corruption and human rights violation irrespective of the individual against whom such allegations are made. However, while the proviso casts a duty on the CPIO to entertain the RTI application seeking such information, all such information can be disclosed only subject to the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In other words, if any such information is otherwise exempt under any of the exemption provisions, there is no obligation to disclose such information. All such requests would have to be dealt with on a case to case basis and appropriate order passed.
8. As far as the present RTI application goes, the information sought in it is clearly related to allegations of corruption against various public servants. Therefore, it is covered under the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. The CPIO must, in this case, consider the RTI request and provide the information subject to the exemption provisions of the RTI Act within 15 working days of receiving this order. However, if he decides not to provide any information, he must to pass a speaking order citing the appropriate provisions of the RTI Act.
9. On the Complainant's demand for payment of Rs. 153 by way of compensation, we think there is merit in this demand. He would not have had to make so much correspondence not only with the Director CBI but also with the CIC had his original application not been returned unopened. Therefore, in our view, he has been put to this loss due to the lapse on the part of the authorities in not accepting the envelope containing his RTI application. In exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, we direct that he be compensated with an amount of Rs. 153. The CIC/SM/C/2012/000374 CPIO is directed to ensure that this amount is sent to the Complainant within 20 working days from the receipt of this order.
10. The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/C/2012/000374