Central Information Commission
Shri D.P. Maheshwari vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi), ... on 25 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/0269 & 270 dated 18-1-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri D.P. Maheshwari,
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ranchi
Decision announced 25.8.'09
FACTS
These are two appeals moved by Shri D.P. Maheshwari, IAS Retd. of Rajpur Road, Dehradun, both stemming from the same application of 25-8- 2007 addressed to the CPIO, Office of Director, CBI, New Delhi. In this application Shri Maheshwari sought the following information:
"(a) Copy of SP, CBI's report No. 11/2000 dated 19.9.2000 in case No. RC 11 (A)/97 (Dhanbad) dated 6.5.97.
(b) Copy of SP, CBI's report in case No. RC 42 (A)/ 97 (Patna)."
File No. WB/A/2008/269 This case refers to the processing of the information sought in Part-(a) of the Application of 25-8-07 quoted above. In response to this application SP, CBI, ACB, Ranchi to whom the application had been transferred had in a letter of 13-9-2007 written to Shri Maheshwari as follows:
"SP's Report in RC 11 (A)/97(D) is a 'Confidential' document and hence is exempted u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Shri Maheshwari then moved an appeal to DIG, CBI, Ranchi on 5-10- 2007 submitting therein that Section 8 (1) (h) cannot apply as the investigation has been completed "long ago" and trial begun. Upon this Shri A.K. Singh, DIG, CBI, Ranchi Region in his order of 15-11-07 found as follows:
"Taking into consideration the appellant's request and respondent's reply, I find that RC 11 (A)/97-D is pending trial and supply of SP's Report at this stage would impede the prosecution of offenders. CPIO has sought the exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, SP Report is a confidential document, as reflected by the CPIO. When a document is classified as confidential, the fiduciary relationship between officers by certain trust as well as certain confidence exist that it contents shall not be accessed by any one not authorised to access them.1
The trust that characterizes writing in confidential document is qualitatively different. Further, disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. It is, therefore, a document marked as confidential attract the exemption u/s 8 (1) (j)."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"CPIO and First Appellate Authority be directed to furnish the copy of document as requested in petition dated 28.8.07 and appeal dated 5.10.2007)."
File No. WB/A/2008/270 This file deals with the issue at (b) of the RTI Application. In this case the response received to his application by Shri D.P. Maheshwari was from SP, CBI, AHD, Patna, which carries an obviously erroneous date17-8-2007, as follows:
"In this regard, it is to inform that SP's Report of RC 42 (A)/1997- Pat. Is a confidential document and cannot be made available and exemption is claimed u/s 8 (i) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
In this case Shri Maheshwari moved an appeal before DIG, CBI, ACB, Patna again pleading non-applicability of Section 8 (1) (h). The response in this case is again from Shri A.K. Singh, DIG. CBI, Patna which is identical to the decision taken by him in file No. WB/A/2008/269, except the change of dates in the processing of this part of the RTI application.
Both appeals were heard on 24-8-2009. The following are present. Appellant at NIC Studio, Dehradun.
Shri D.P. Maheshwari.
Respondents at NIC Studio, Ranchi Shri Javed Ahmad, Jt. Director, CBI Shri T. C. Dwivedi.
(at NIC Studio Patna) Shri Dinendra Kashyap, SP, CBI.
Shri Dinendra Kashyap, SP, CBI, Patna clarified that the date of response of SP, Patna to the RTI application was 17-9-07 and not 17-8-07. Respondent took the plea that both cases were connected to the high profile case of a major scam in the then undivided State of Bihar amounting to Rs. 200 crores. The grounds on which some persons have been accused and 2 brought to prosecution have been laid out in the charge sheet on the basis of enquiry and some have been included as accused and a copy can also be provided to appellant Shri Maheshwari, if he wishes to obtain a copy on payment of the prescribed cost. However, disclosing the enquiry report itself will expose discussion of the pros and cons of the case brought against each of the accused and will certainly give undue advantage to those who wish to exploit them to compromise the prosecution. The present status of the case under the prosecution is that it is under stay by order issued by the Apex Court on the basis of SLP filed by the accused. However, appellant Shri Maheshwari is not an accused in either case to whom, therefore, disclosure of the information sought is not in the public interest.
Appellant Shri Maheshwari, on the other hand submitted that he recognises he is not the accused in these cases. As per his information however his role in this scam has been discussed in the investigation report and he has been exonerated of all charges. Now, however, another case is being brought up against him on identical charges. He requires to know of his exoneration in the enquiry report sought by him so as to obviate further harassment and enquiry in the matter on an issue which is already settled. To this SP, Shri Dinendra Kashyap, SP, CBI, Patna submitted that although it may be true that role of appellant Shri Maheshwari has been discussed in the investigation report this can only be confirmed by examination of the report. However, such an investigation report would have gone into details of personal information not only regarding Shri Maheshwari but also the accused and such disclosure would amount to invasion of privacy thus qualifying for exemption under section 8 (1) (j).
DECISION NOTICE The plea of exemption under section 8 (1) (j) cannot apply in either case in which information sought to be supplied is regarding the exemption in the case Shri Maheshwari himself. Even if the reports of which copies have been sought contain personal information regarding others the principle of 3 severability u/s 10(1) can be brought to bear in such a case. It is true that failure of public interest can be one of the courses for exemption under section 8 (1) (j) but this is only one of the cause and has to be read together with other causes which include public activity and avoiding invasion of privacy. In this case since this information is about himself, which is being sought by Shri Maheshwari, invasion of privacy cannot be cited as a ground to deny him information. Besides in this case there has been an investigation by a senior police officer who has then presented an investigation report which is indisputably the result of a public activity.
In both these cases what Shri Maheshwari has sought is a copy of the two complete inquiry reports. Having heard the arguments and examined the records we have little doubt that providing such information could indeed as held by CPIOs in both cases both impede the process of investigation and amount to invasion of privacy of number of persons mentioned in the report besides having possible ramification invoking exemption under section 8 (1)
(g). However, under severability allowed under section 10 (1), "Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, 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 exempt information. "
In both these cases the request for access to information has been rejected on the ground that it concerns information that is exempt from disclosure at present. However, because Shri Maheshwari is not an accused in the present case before the Supreme Court and information regarding him can, therefore, not be held to be such as could impede the process of investigation or prosecution, and whereas such information arising from a public activity cannot be construed to amount to invasion of privacy of the individual seeking the information that part of information exonerating Shri D. P. Maheshwari from prosecution in the present two cases will be provided to him as per sub section (1) of section 10 of the RTI Act within 4 10 working days from the date of receipt of this decision notice. Both appeals are thus allowed to this extent. There will be no costs Reserved in the hearing, this decision announced in open chamber on August 25 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 25-8-2009 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 25-8-2009 5