Central Information Commission
Madan Lal Grover Q vs Delhi Police on 14 December, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/ DEPOL/A/2017/143258
Date of Hearing : 29.11.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Madan Lal Grover
Respondent : PIO, O/o Addl Dy. Commissioner of
Police, (I), North West Distt, Ashok
Vihar
Through: Sh. Rajendra Pal -ACP;
Sh. Kamal Duggal- Inspector; Sh.
Sunny Kumar- SI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2017
PIO replied on : 24.03.2017
First Appeal filed on : 17.04.2017
First Appellate Order on : 16.05.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 27.06.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 27.02.2017, the appellant through four specific queries sought to know the details of complaints filed by and filed against Shri Mukesh Tiwari s/o Shri Nirbhay Tiwari and also sought copies of the same. PIO vide letter dated 24.03.2017 denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Being not satisfied, the appellant filed an appeal on 17.04.2017. The FAA vide order 16.05.2017 furnished requisite pointwise information while denying copy of FIRs to the appellant. The appellant approached the Commission with the plea that complete and requisite information is not provided.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant is represented through counsel who at the very outset commences his arguments stating that the information sought by his client are public records and should be made available under the RTI Act. He cited some decisions to establish his point, Page 1 of 4 viz. CIC's recent decision in case no. CIC/DSESJ/A/2016/305423 dated 16.10.2017 titled Sh. Y N Prasad vs. PIO/Ahalmad, Evening Court whereby the appellant had sought certain documents from Court records viz. Copy of notice/summon dated 23.07.2015 (Date of hearing), no. 14/447309.
Response/reply submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate (Evening Court) Karkardooma Court by the responding management (RCCG) and incidental information thereto relating to judicial proceedings. While deciding the case, the Commission had granted inspection of the judicial file, holding that "Judicial proceedings and records thereof are public records". To further augment his averments, the counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in a batch matter titled UOI vs. CIC & P.D. Khandelwal dated 30.11.2009 and a decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal vs. State of T.N dated 07.10.1994.
Narrating the background of the RTI application, the counsel has stated that the cause for seeking the information under RTI Act arises from the harassment caused to the appellant due to his campaign against the miscreants indulging in unauthorised construction. It was submitted that certain unlawful elements from the appellant's locality were involved in raising unauthorised, illegal structures on their common roof in gross violation of the municipal laws/byelaws and in defiance of every norm, putting public safety at peril. Since these contractors/promoters/builders were functioning in collusion with the municipal authorities and the Police, no action was taken against them and instead such dangerous structures were being openly and rampantly sold. Instead of any action against these perpetrators of unlawful activities, the appellant's wife was molested by two of these miscreants. Hence information about complaints and/or FIRs filed by or against the same person viz. Mukesh Tiwari was sought by the appellant in order to establish the criminal record and background of the person. Respondent states that he joined service at this location in September 2017 and since then no complaint has been received against this third party. He further submitted that as is evident from the FAA's order dated 16.05.2017 two cases were found registered against the same person under Section 354 of IPC, wherein investigation have been completed and final chargesheets have been filed. He further informed that out of the two, one FIR had been registered by the appellant's wife while the other is by another lady. Copy of the FIR related to the appellant's wife has already been provided to her, but in order to protect the details of the said lady, copy of the other FIR has been denied from disclosure.
Decision:
After hearing submissions of the parties and upon perusal of records, the Commission finds that the decision of this Commission in the case no. CIC/DSESJ/A/2016/305423 dated 16.10.2017 relates to a judicial file and Page 2 of 4 proceedings arising out of the same, whereas the case at hand deals with police records, complaint/FIRs related to a third person. While orders, date of hearing and such related judicial records are available in public domain, FIRs and Complaints registered by the police, especially related to third persons are not published in public domain. It is particularly noteworthy, that the Apex Court decision in the case of R. Rajagopal has held that Publication of court records will not constitute any violation of the right to privacy, except in the following circumstance:
The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency{Article 19(2) an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicized in press/ media.
The other FIR as sought by the appellant deals with an FIR registered by an unknown lady unrelated to any proceeding. Thus the denial of copy of such FIR is upheld by the Commission. It has been averred by the appellant that this fact that one of the two FIRs was that which arose out of complaint lodged by the appellant's wife, is not borne out of the reply of the Respondent.
The Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish a Revised Reply clarifying that out of the two FIRs one was that which arose out of complaint filed by the appellant's wife, while the cause of denial of the copy of the other FIR is to protect the identity and personal information of an unconnected lady, who is a stranger to these proceedings. In so far as copy of complaint/s are sought by the appellant, Respondent shall clarify the reason for denial of the same. This Revised Reply shall be furnished to the appellant within a week of receipt of this order, with a copy marked to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 3 of 4 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 4 of 4