Central Information Commission
Kedar Nath vs Cbi on 14 July, 2020
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/158708
Kedar Nath अपीलकता/Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Block-IV, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003. ितवादीगण/Respondent
.... ितवादीगण
RTI application filed on : 14/06/2018
CPIO replied on : 16/07/2018
First appeal filed on : 30/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 14/08/2018
Second Appeal dated : 22/09/2018
Date of Hearing : 22/06/2020
Date of Decision : 22/06/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant certified copy of CBICFSL report in detail along with individual comprehensive DNA analysis study report in the case titled Ked Kedar Nath Vs. Sita Devi pending adjudication before the court of Learned District & Sessions Judge, Kishtwar, J&K. 1 Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
present:
Appellant: Represented by D.S. Kauntae, Advocate in person.
Respondent: J.G. Moses, Principal Scientific Officer & CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Block-IV, IV, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present on phone.
At the outset, Rep of the Appellant sought permission of the Commission to put forward the factual matrix of the instant matter and stated that a Suit has been filed by the Appellant under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce from his wife (Smt. Seeta Devi) on the grounds of adultery and same is pending disposal since 2013.. He further stated that wife of the Appellant had delivered a child on 17.09.2007 7 and in the year 2014 Appellant filed an application before the Ld. Trial Court, Kishtwar inter alia praying forr conducting DNA test of the said Distt and Session Judge Kishtwar child. Subsequent to that, Hon'ble Principal Distt. allowed the said application and sent DNA samples on 19.04.2018
19. 4.2018 in connection with the case under reference for CFSL examination and the same was w acknowledged by the "Biology Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), Ministry of Home Affairs, Block-4, B 4, CGO complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi (Respondent herein). He furthermore submitted that vide letter dated 24.05.2018, report was submitted by Dr. Kamal Chauhan, Senior 5.2018, a DNA profiling report Scientific Officer Gr- II (Bio Divn.) cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, to Govt of India CFSL, CBI New Delhi to Hon'ble Distt. Judge Kishtwar, (J&K). Aggrieved and satisfied with the said test report, Appellant filed the instant RTI Application dis-satisfied 6.2018 followed by an application dated October 2018 which was dated 14.06.2018 addressed to the Director, CFSL, and sought the complete certified set of DNA Profile Test which includes uments, however, the include all the tests and concerning, documents, relevant information was arbitrarily denied and refused by the CPIO vide reply 7.2018 stating that the information sought cannot be disclosed as the dated 16.07.2018 same is exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. He furthermore submitted submi that the Appellant ppellant has every reason to believe and apprehend that proper procedure has not been followed and in the absence of DNA profile protocol/ 2 File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/158708 Examination, the report dated 25.05.2018 furnished by Dr. Dr Kamal Chauhan, SSO (Bio)-Gr-II in CBI, CFSL New Delhi is not genuine and smacks of foul play.
In addition to the above,, he stated that not only CPIO has arbitrarily arbitrar denied the relevant information under the garb of Section 8(1)(h) without specifying any justification, the FAA vide impugned order dated 14 2018 has 14.08.2018 ha also endorsed the denial mechanically..
Rep. of the Appellant further brought attention of the Commission to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble n'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Adesh Kumar vs. Union of India andOrs., W.P.(C) 3543/2014, wherein it was held as under: -
" 10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the FAA indicates that the aspect as to how the disclosure of information would impede prosecution has not been considered. Merely, citing 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act would not absolve the public that the information is exempted under 8(1)( authority from discharging its onus as required re ...."
to claim such exemption....
Rep. of the Appellant thus contended that the public authority has to give explicit reasons to justify the denial of information as the burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure would impede the investigation. He also placed reliance on a decision of a coordinate bench h of the Commission dated 22.03.2017 in the matter of Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs. SEBI's(CIC/MP/A/2014/001006 (CIC/MP/A/2014/001006-BJ + CIC/MP/A/2015/001322-BJ BJ). Further towards the concluding part, Rep. of the Appellant remarked that the Appellant is a serving soldier of this nation, therefore such conduct of Respondent office in sough is a mere disregard to his services. arbitrarily denying the information sought CPIO submitted that the comprehensive DNA analysis study report sought in the concerned Court from where the DNA RTI Application was submitted to the concerned office. He further submitted that since the case was analysis was referred to their office. pending in the Court, he was of the genuine belief that disclosure of the report will be hit by the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act Act.
At this point, Commission apprised the parties that the instant case has been already decided on its merits vide File No. CIC/CBRUI/C/2019/105647 on No.CIC/CBRUI/C/2019/105647 12.02.2020. Following was the decision in the said case:
"Decision 3 Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that CPIO has erred in denying information under 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act because the matter was referred to them by a Court.
CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to th the RTI Act 2005 F.No.1/3/2011 IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. CSFL is a wing of CBI andd the above provision is also applicable to them. In the instant case, Appellant has not made any specific allegation of corruption/ human rights violation, which will make him entitled for information from CSFL.
In view of the foregoing, Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter."
Rep. of Appellant vehemently objected to the observation of the Commission and asserted that the earlier Complaint and the instant Second Appeal ought to be adjudicated upon separately.
He furthermore stated that the Respondent office cannot be exempted under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act as it is wrong to consider them as a branch of CBI since they are merely providing scientific analysis to CBI on case to case bas basis and are not directly under the control of CBI.
Commission pointed out that CFSL is under the administrative control of CBI.
Decision In furtherance of the observations made during hearing, Commission reiterates that no separate line of adjudication can be adopted in the instant matter in view of the decision in File No. CIC/CBRUI/C/2019/105647 /C/2019/105647 dated Notwithstanding the assertion made by the Rep. of Appellant that 12.02.2020.Notwithstanding both the cases filed under separate provisions of RTI Act A ought to be decided separately, it may be noted that, that effectively what the Rep. of Appellant seeks in decision In this regard, reference shall be had this case is a review of the earlier decision. of a judgment dated 21.05.2010 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter ma of DDA vs. CIC [WP WP (C) 12714/2009], 12714/2009 wherein, whilespeaking in the context of Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, 2007, Court held as under:
4CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/158708 File No :CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/158708 "35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner, Commissioner, to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed there under grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal. Clearly, the said regulation is beyond the contemplation of the Act. Such a regulation is ultra ra vires the provisions of the Act." Emphasis Supplied In view of the foregoing, since the same facts of the case have been adjudicated upon and it has been decided that there is no scope for relief, the instant case warrants no action.
The appeal is disposed di of accordingly.
िद Divya Prakash Sinha (िद काश िस ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (अिभ ित Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ 26106140/ [email protected] हरो साद सेन, उप-पं पं जीयक िदनां क/ Date 6