Central Information Commission
Sharat Kohli vs Cbi on 28 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2020/126559
Sharat Kohli ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, RTI Cell,
5-B, CBI HQ Building, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2021
Date of Decision : 24/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/05/2020
CPIO replied on : 17/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 05/08/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 07/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/09/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.05.2020 seeking the following information:
"..It is most humbly submitted that I am posted as an Inspector in 7th Bn DAP of Delhi Police and temporarily attached with the 3rd Bn DAP at Vikaspuri Lines. The ACB of C.B.I has registered FIR No. RC-DAI-2019-A-0027 dated 25.07.2019 U/s 7 PC Act, PS CBI, ACB, New Delhi against me on the complaint of one Prayagdeep Lakra S/o Sh Attar Singh R/o H.No 31, village Ranholla, New Delhi. In this regard, provide the following information; (1) In the year 2019 since 1st January 2019 to till 23rd July 2019 how many times Prayagdeep Lakra S/o Sh Attar Singh R/o H.No 31, Village Ranholla visited C.B.I HQ Building, 5-B C.G.O Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi ? (2) Kindly furnish all details pertaining to his visit in CBI HQ building including details of his gate pass, copy of register in which he filled his particulars and the name of the CBI Officers with whom he had met on each particular day. (3) Kindly furnish details regarding Prayagdeep Lakras movement in CBI HQ on 21.07.2019 and 22.07.2019. Did he visit CBI HQ on 21.07.2019 and 22.07.2019? If yes details of his entry gate pass, copy of register in which he filled his particulars and the name of the CBI Officers with whom he had met on 21/22.07.2019.
(4) Kindly furnish the time of Entry of Prayagdeep Lakra on 22.07.2019 in CBI HQ and what was his purpose of coming to CBI HQ ? On 22.07.19 he met with which particular officer of CBI and what was the time of his Exit from CBI HQ? Kindly furnish copy of his gatepass, copy of entry register to the undersigned."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 17.06.2020 under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2020. FAA's order dated 07.08.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and also denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Alok Shahi, DSP & Rep. of CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant narrated the context in which the information has been sought for in the RTI Application and stated that in the year 2019 he was posted as lnspector in DIU/Outer District Pitampura when the individual referred to in the RTI Application i.e Paryagdeep Lakra lodged a FIR against him through CBI FIR No. RC- DA1-2O19-A-0027 dated 25.07.19 U/s 7 PC Act, PS CBl, ACB, New Delhi. He further argued that the investigation in the matter stands completed with the filing of the Chargesheet and therefore there cannot be any impediment to the investigation as on date. He further stated that moreover the claim of Section 8(1)(g) is also irrelevant as he is already privy to the source of information which is the copy of the FIR. He insisted that these documents are vital for defending his case before the Court where the trial is underway and by virtue of the principles of natural justice, he has every right to ask for this information and defend his case. He alleged that he has been falsely implicated by Paryagdeep Lakra for not investigating the matter as per his whims and wishes which was contrary to the duty assigned to him. He lastly stated that the date and time of visit of Paryagdeep Lakra has been sought for by him as he had allegedly visited the CBI office on 22.07.2019 while the FIR against him has been shortly thereafter on 25.07.2019 which raises a concern regarding Lakra's purpose of visit to the CBI office just days prior to filing the averred FIR against him.
The CPIO submitted that since trial is pending in the matter, Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was invoked for the denial of the information and as such the matter being sub-judice, the disclosure may also amount to a contempt of Court and therefore Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. He further reiterated the applicability of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Upon a query from the Commission as to whether the nature of information as sought for by the Appellant is available in the records or not, the CPIO expressed his inability to confirm the same and submitted that he will have to check with the concerned Investigating Officer of the case to ascertain the availability.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after hearing the submissions of the CPIO observes at the outset that the applicability of Section 3 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act is not pertinent in the matter and appears to be rather laboured. Concededly, the identity of Paryagdeep Lakra is already known to the Appellant and the CPIO has not explained whose life and physical safety or source of information is being protected under the garb of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the exemption of Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act does not become operative on the mere apprehension of a contempt of Court, i.e Section 8(1)(b) prescribes as under:
"information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;.."
In other words, since there is no express direction of the Court forbidding the disclosure of the information in the instant matter, Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act is inapplicable.
Nonetheless, while the Commission empathizes with the case of the Appellant wherein, he may be entitled to defend his case before the Court of Law, but the fact remains that the same pertains to a third party's visits to the CBI office, disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of the said individual's privacy and therefore stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The protection afforded under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to the personal information of a third party cannot be lifted unless there is an overriding larger public interest, which is the only exception to the rule. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and 4 psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Now, as regards, Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought for speculative information without specifying any record and moreover, the CPIO was unable to confirm if the information even exists in the records. For the said reasons, assessing the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in the matter appears to be rather cumbersome and considering the square applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as explained above, the merits of the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is also inconsequential in the matter.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds that in the absence of any larger public interest, the information sought for in the RTI Application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and no relief can be ordered in the matter.
The CPIO is advised to acquaint himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act before invoking the exemption clauses for denying any information in the future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6