Central Information Commission
Udai Singh Gurjar vs Central Industrial Security Force on 22 February, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CISFO/A/2022/666427
Shri Udai Singh Gurjar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Industrial Security Force
Date of Hearing : 22.02.2024
Date of Decision : 22.02.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2022
PIO replied on : 26.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 29.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 09.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 14.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"01. Whether the Custom/Immigration / Any other agency staff coming out of Departure hall which is situated after the immigration desk, is physically frisked or not? If yes kindly provide the copy of relevant rules under which frisked. And if not kindly provide the reasons thereof.
02.Can a custom officer enter through any gate at CSMIA,T2 terminal or there are designated gates for the entry. And on entry whether they are checked and frisked or not?"
The CPIO vide letter dated 26.11.2022 replied as under:-
"02. सूचना का अधिकार अधिधनयम-2005 की िारा (24) के प्राविानों के अन्तर्गत आपको सूधचत ककया जाता है कक केन्रीय औद्योधर्क सुरक्षा बल, एक सशस्त्र बल होने के नाते मानवाधिकार उल्लंघन एवं भ्रष्टाचार जैसे मामलों के अलावा अन्य मामलों में सूचना प्रदान करने से मुक्त है । अतः आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत आवेदन के माध्यम से मांर्ी Page 1 of 4 र्यी सूचनायें उपलब्ि नहीं करवायी जा सकती, क्योंकक आपके द्वारा वांधित सूचनायें उपरोक्त वर्णगत दोनों मामलों से परे हैं ।"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 09.12.2022 stated as under:-
"2. I have carefully considered your appeal vis-a-vis reply letter No.19323 dated 26.11.2022 issued by CPIO/DIG CISF ASG Mumbai. It is to inform you that by virtue of provision contained in Section-24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by you, cannot be provided as the CISF, being an Armed Force of the Union is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. Since the information sought for by you does not fall under either of the two categories stated above your appeal is not maintainable."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 17.02.2024 has been received from CPIO, CISF, CSMI, Airport Unit, Mumbai and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 18.02.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. Naveen Baghat, PIO, CISF The Appellant reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the matter involves gross corruption as well as human right violation as he was illegally denied by customs authorities at CSMIA Mumbai and is being framed in a false case. He stated that the instant case falls under proviso to Section 24 and the information sought should be disclosed to him.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the by virtue of provision contained in Section-24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided as the CISF, being an Armed Force of the Union is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. He averred that the information sought for the Appellant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories. Furthermore, Page 2 of 4 the information sought is clarificatory in nature and do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Upon Commission's instance, PIO submitted that a copy of written submission has already been furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
On perusals of records of the case, it is noted that the Respondent has replied appropriately in terms of the provisions of RTI Act. Commission observes that the CISF is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the CISF is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Moreover, the information sought in the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. Commission further observes that mere allegation of corruption or possibility of human rights violation is not sufficient to grant information as sought by the Appellant, more so in view of the specific bar under Section 24 of the RTI Act. A reference in this regard can be made to the recent decision of division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA/696/2023 and CM Appl. 52742/2023 dated 11.10.2023 in the case titled as Adarsh Kanojia Vs Union of India, wherein the court held as under ;
"...12. Undoubtedly, the IB is an organisation specified under theSecond Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the IB is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Certain exceptions have been carved out wherein the information requisitioned is strictly in relation to (i) allegations of corruption; and / or
(ii) allegations of human rights violations. Admittedly, the present case does not satisfy the exception as the underlying RTI Application (as more particularly identified in Paragraph 3 of this Judgement) does not seek information in relation to the category of information as outlined above.
13. Furthermore, unsubstantiated submissions; and bald averments alleging corruption cannot be made the bedrock of a direction from this Court to an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act. Accordingly, we find no infirmity with the Impugned Judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge..."
In view of foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4