Central Information Commission
Neeraj Sharma vs Delhi Police on 3 March, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi-110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos.: CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/603117
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/685257
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/684855
Shri Neeraj Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
New Delhi ... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Office of Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Central District, Darya Ganj, Delhi - 110002
2. PIO, Office of DCP (Crime)/Crime Branch 2nd Floor,
Police Station Kamla Market, Office Complex,
Delhi -110002
3. PIO,DCP, Headquarters, 8th Floor, M.S.O Building,
Police Headquarters, I.P Estate, New Delhi- 110001
4. PIO, Dy. Secretary, Dept. of Home, Home Department,
5th Floor, C- Wing Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110001
Through: Smt. Renu lata - ACP and Sh. Kamal Krishan -ASI
... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 01.03.2021
Date of Decision : 03.03.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed on CPIO reply First FAO 2nd
No. appeal Appeal/Co
mplaint
received
on
603117 08.12.2018 09.01.2019 10.01.2019 13.02.2019 18.02.2019
Page 1 of 6
685257 09.08.2020 10.09.2020 - - 11.09.2020
684855 31.05.2020 01.07.2020 18.07.2020 18.08.2020 08.09.2020
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/603117
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2018 seeking information on
following 7 points:
1. Please provide the certified copy of application submitted by Vishwa
Hindu Parishad or BJP or RSS any other group for organizing the
Dharma Sabha on December 9 2018, at Ramlila Maidan.
2. Please provide the certified copy of Permission letter given by Delhi
Police for Dharma Sabha on December 9 2018, at Ramlila Maidan.
3. Please provide date and time when was permission apply.
4. Please provide date and time when was permission letter issued.
5. Please provide no. of days of permission given.
6. Please provide Rank and numbers of police employees deputed for
Dharma Sabha on December 9, 2018, Ramlila Maidan.
7. If Permission denied, Please provide the certified copy permission
denied copy.
The CPIO, Office of Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, Darya
Ganj furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.01.2019 stating as
under:
"The requisite information can not be provided to you under the
provisions of section 8 (1) (a, g & j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it consists of
sensitive information, information given in confidence to law enforcement
authority and personal information providing of which does not seem to
have any public interest."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 10.01.2019. The FAA vide order dated 13.02.2019 observed that
the reply provided is found correct and it does not require any intervention.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 24.02.2021 has been filed by the Respondent reiterating the facts narrated hereinabove.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. Appellant pointed out that no reasoned order has been passed by the Respondent substantiating the basis of denial of information. Respondent replied that information sought by the Appellant was declined at the relevant point of time in order to prevent communal disharmony and ensure public safety.
Page 2 of 6Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing the averments of the parties, the Commission is not convinced with the Respondent's reply and the reason for denial of information, considering that the PIO's reply does not substantiate the denial of information, under various sub-clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Hence, it is hereby directed that a revised reply should be furnished by the Respondent in response to the RTI Application, disclosing information which is not expressly barred from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act and does not compromise safety and security of any person. The revised reply should be sent by the Respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order and compliance report in this regard should be submitted by the respondent before the Commission by 31.03.2021. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/C/2020/685257 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2020 seeking information on following 4 Points:
1. Please provide certified copy of FIRs registered on the Case of confidential documents leaked of oil ministry from Shastri Bhawan in February 2015.
2. Please provide certified copy the Charge sheet filed by Delhi Police crime branch on this case.
3. Please provide the Court Case number, name of court where this case filed.
4. Please provide the list of documents leaked.
The CPIO, Office of DCP (Crime), Kamla Market, Delhi, furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.09.2020 stating as under:
Reply on Point No. 1 & 4:-Copies of FIRs (i.e. 17/15 & 20/15, P.S Crime Branch) & documents cannot be provided being sensitive in nature.
Reply on Point No. 2:-Requisite information may be had from Patiala House Court & Dwarka Court.
Reply on Point No. 3:-The Requisite information is not available in this office.
Dissatisfied with the reply, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.Page 3 of 6
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. Respondent explained that certain FIRs are not disclosed in public domain in specific cases which are sensitive in nature. Complainant raises objection to the Respondent's contention and contends that the information sought is not so sensitive, disclosure whereof is prohibited under provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon hearing the averments of the parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission observed that though there has been a denial of information, there appears no malafide on the part of the Respondent to obstruct free flow of information. The Commission places on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
".....The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In another decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. [WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009], it was held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely."
The Complainant could not satisfy the Commission or substantiate his claims further regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. Thus the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention is deemed necessary in this case, considering the absence of any malafide in the conduct of the Respondent, as has been discussed in the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble Courts.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/684855 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2020 seeking information on following 2 points:
Page 4 of 61. Please provide certified copy of communication dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), GNCTD to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Legal Cell), whereby it is informed that Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General; Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned ASG; Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG; and Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel; and Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate were appointed as Special P.P./Special Counsel to represent Delhi Police to the Delhi Riots case.
2. Please provide certified copy of letter written in February 2020 received from the Home Department of Delhi Government to the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi Police, intimating that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will head a team of lawyers representing the Delhi Police before the Delhi High Court and other for in all matters related to the Delhi Riots.
The CPIO, DCP, Headquarters, I.P Estate, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.07.2020 stating as under:
Reply on Point No. 1:- As the originator of communication dated 29.05.2020 is Deputy Secretary, Home, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Hence, the requisite information will be provided to you by PIO/Govt. of NCT of Delhi, where your RTI application is being transferred.
Reply on Point No. 2:- As the letter written in February 2020 is stated to be issued from Home Department, Delhi Government. Hence, PIO/Govt. of NCT of Delhi may reply.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2020. The FAA vide order dated 18.08.2020 observed that PIO/PHQ righty transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO. However, in relief, PIO/PHQ is hereby directed to re-examine the matter and provide a fresh reply to the appellant within a period of two weeks positively along with the relevant documents available with them, if any, free of cost, as per the RTI Act-2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions dated 16.02.2021 has been filed by the Respondent reiterating the facts narrated hereinabove. Vide letter dated 31.08.2020, information against query number 1 had been provided, Appellant denies receipt of the same, which was then provided during the hearing.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and reiterate their respective contentions as discussed above.Page 5 of 6
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case, as noted from the perusal of records and averments of the parties, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in this case.
The above cases are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के .िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6