Central Information Commission
Sunil Gupta vs Dda on 26 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/00685
Sunil Gupta VS DDA
Dated : 26.11.2009
This is in continuation of this Commission's Interim Decision dated 12.8.2009. As scheduled the matter is called for hearing today dated 8.9.2009. Appellant Shri Sunil Gupta is present along with his Adv. Sanjay Kumar. Shri Sumit Saran, SP, CBI, is also present. Shri Sumit Saran, strongly pleads against disclosure of information on the ground that it will impede the process of prosecution. On the other hand, Adv. Sanjay Kumar strongly pleads for disclosure of information on the grounds adduced by him in the earlier hearing held on 12.8.2009.
2. It is, no doubt, true that RTI Act prescribes a regime providing for transparency in the system. It is also true that this law is to be interpreted in liberal and not in restrictive terms. In other words, as per the scheme of law, disclosure is the norm and non-disclosure, an exception. Yet the exemptions provided in section 8 (1) have to be factored in, while deciding the matter. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.11.2006 of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in WP (C) No. 16712/2006 (Surender Pal Singh Vs UOI and Ors). The appellant had allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs. three lacs from a party and when the prosecution was mid-stream, he had sought the following documents :-
"(i) Note Sheet to Page 1 to page 55; (ii) Correspondence to and from the abvoe file with CBI;
(iii) Correspondence to and from the above file with C.V.C; &
(iv) Correspondence to and from the abvoe file with Departmetn of vigilance CBEC."
This information was denied to him by the CPIO and Appellate Authority and, ultimately, the matter reached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The finding of the court is extracted below :-
"The Central Information Commission and the Appellate Authority and CPIO have held that the prosecution of the offender is pending before the Special Judge. If the prosecution of the offender is pending and not yet complete the information which is sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender, can not be faulted. The empharic argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation is already over as the chargesheet has already over as the chargesheet has already been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation is not correct. Exemption from disclosure of information can be claimed for any information which may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Since the chargesheet has been filed the process of investigation has been completed but the petitioner cannot contend that there is no apprehension with the respondent that the information sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender. Whether the respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the respondents in the present facts and circumstances. The apprehension of the respondents is not without any basis. In any case the prosecution of the offender is pending. Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it can not be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) from disclosure of information sought by the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation has been completed as chargesheet has already been filed cannot be accepted and is contrary to all the circumstances under which exemption can be claimed under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
The decision to decline the request of the petitioner for the information regarding sanction of his prosecution which may impede the prosecution of offender, can not be faulted in the facts and circumstances. There is no error or illegally in the orders passed by the respondents seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 nor any procedural unreasonableness can be inferred."
4. The ratio of the above cited judgment squarely applies in the factual matrix of the present case. Admittedly, the matter is under prosecution and the possibility of the prosecution being impeded in the eventuality of disclosure of the requested information can not be discounted. Hence, relying on the authority cited above, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Order reserved and pronounced on 26th November, 2009.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri Sumit Saran Supdt. of Police, CBI, 1st Floor, Block No. 4, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003
2. Shri Alok Swaraj Dy. Director (Vig), Delhi Development Authority, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023
3. Shri Sunil Gupta UDC/U/S, DU-31 (GF), Pitampura, Delhi-110088