Central Information Commission
Mr. Arvind Sharma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01690 dated 27.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Mr. Arvind Sharma
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs
Facts:
By an application of 9.8.07 Shri Arvind Sharma of Gandhi Nagar, Moradabad applied to the Ministry of Home Affairs in connection with a case of dowry harassment, as follows:
"I request for the following information which will help me get justice:
a) As mandatory under the CSS9CCA) Rules / Service Rules, has Shri Pandey made disclosure about acquisition of movable and immovable assets indicated in the list? If so, the details thereof / copies of documents.
Do these assets justify his known sources of income? Reasons thereof.
b) In view of the records available with your office, what is the approximate amount drawn by Shri Pandey as salary during the last 20 years?
c) Does Shri Pandey hold any other property in NCR? Details thereof.
d) Is your office aware of Shri Pandey's confession before the police and his daughter's sworn affidavit that he has given dowry for marriage of his daughters thus committing non- bailable offences?
e) Now hat the office is aware of Shri Pandey's guilt as described above, do you intend to take necessary action against him, as giving and taking of dowry is punishable offence under Dowry Prohibition Act and the Conduct Rules? The reasons thereof and the relevant service / conduct rule position.
f) In view of the disclosures in the enclosed list, is Shri Pandey's case fit for action under Prevention of Corruption Act? Does the Ministry intend to proceed in light of these revelations? If so, how soon can one expect action? If not, reasons thereof.
g) Has your Department ever received any similar enquiry earlier on Shri Pandey's conduct and if so, the action taken thereon? If not, the reasons thereof.
h) Your views on the submissions in para 7 below.
1i) What sort of action does your Department propose to initiate based on the submissions above? Reasons thereof."
To this he received the following response dated 3.9.07 from the Dy. Director, Intelligence Bureau (IB) to whom the case stood transferred from Ministry of Home Affairs on 14.8.07:
"As per provisions of the RTI Act 2005, Chapter VI, Sec. 24 and Second Schedule, the Intelligence Bureau has been exempted from providing any information / detail on the subject matter. Hence it is regretted that the information sought cannot be provided."
Aggrieved Shri Sharma moved his first appeal on 25.9.07 addressed to Shri S. K. Bansal, Dy. Director, IB arguing as follows:
"Clearly the exemption clause covers my request / application 1 . I have not requested for any sensitive information. Surely information on the assets of a corrupt Government employee, salary drawn by him and relevant rule position / Departmental action in respect of grave offences committed by him would not jeopardize the nation's security interests."
Upon this he received an order dated 15.10.2007 from Shri R. N. Gupta, Jt. Director, as follows "The appeal preferred by you has been carefully gone through. Since IB is exempted under 2nd Schedule of the Sec. 24(1) of RTI Act, 2005, your request to provide certain information under RTI Act 2005 could not be considered."
Shri Sharma has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"the Ministry has not found even one of my queries to merit an answer. As an ordinary citizen not well versed with the bureaucratic set up, I think at least some of the queries cannot be termed Secret or Confidential by any stretch of imagination. The functionaries are trying to shield Shri Pandey and it seems evident because they did not even quote relevant service rules terming them Secret.
In view of the above, I am making this request to your high office because I think that a corrupt officer like Shri Pandey is trying to bend the rules of the system. As the Govt. observes 1 The exemption referred to is Proviso to Sec 24 (1) 2 VIGILANCE AWARENESS WEEK now, it is most appropriate that the information may be provided to me. I am not reiterating the submissions made in my earlier letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs which are enclosed along with this letter."
The appeal was heard on 13.4.2009. The following are present:
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri K. K. Majumdar, Under Secretary Shri Manoj Kr. Lall, IPS, Deputy Director, IB Shri S. M. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Dy. Dir. IB Although arrangements had been made for hearing through videoconference with NIC Moradabad, appellant Shri Arvind Sharma has opted not to be present. We have also received a request from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary, MHA submitting that he is in no way connected with this appeal, although the initial application was made to him which has been transferred to Shri N. M. Krishnan, then Director (Delhi) & CPIO, IB, and he may be exempted from personal appearance. This plea has been accepted.
Shri Manoj Kumar Lall, IPS, Dy. Director IB submitted that appellant Shri Arvind Sharma is the accused in the dowry harassment case. However, there is no allegation of dowry harassment against the employee of IB.
DECISION NOTICE Sec. 24(1) relied on in his appeal by appellant Shri Sharma, reads as follows:
Sec. 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:3
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request."
It is therefore; clear that if there had been a case of allegation of corruption against an employee of the IB, the IB would have been bound to provide information. In this case, there is no such allegation with the appellant himself being an accused in the dowry harassment case and, therefore, the accused in a case of a corrupt practice. It is not the IB employee Shri Pandey, regarding whom information has been sought, against whom there is any such allegation of corruption, except allegations of excessive payment of dowry, in which the charge of acceptance of dowry seems already to be before the competent court. We cannot therefore find any ground for the intervention of this Commission in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13.4.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13.4.2009 4