What the Delhi HC held on information related to corruption, human rights violations under the RTI Act

The Delhi High Court has held that information regarding allegations of corruption and human rights violations in respect of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), need not be mandatorily disclosed by the concerned authorities under the Act, if the information is struck by Section 8 of the Act..Section 24(1) excludes intelligence and security organisations from the application of the Act, however the proviso to the Section carves out an exemption in case of information in respect of allegations of violation of human rights or corruption. Section 8 of the Act grants exemption from disclosure to certain categories of information such as information received in confidence from foreign government, etc..Therefore, before sharing such information which is in possession of intelligence agencies, the concerned authority would have to determine its feasibility in terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act, the Court has stated..The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a petition preferred by a person convicted by Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) Court in relation to the Mumbai Train Blast case of July 2006..The petitioner claimed that during investigation by various agencies, it was revealed that members of the Indian Mujahideen were involved in the case and that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had collected information about their involvement. The IB then prepared a report, which was placed before the Home Minister in the year 2009. It was submitted that the said report suggested a review of the evidence in the case and indicated that the Indian Mujahideen, and not the petitioner, was responsible for the blasts..The petitioner therefore filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Intelligence Bureau, seeking a true copy of the IB report. The application was rejected by the concerned CPIO on the ground that by virtue of Section 24(1), the IB is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act..Aggrieved by the reply, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). In his appeal, the petitioner claimed that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act was inapplicable in the present case, as the information being sought fell within one of the exceptions carved out under Section 24(1) of the Act, i.e allegation of violation of human rights..The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and turned down petitioner’s request on the same ground. The second appeal before the Central Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act was also rejected..The Commission held that the information sought by the petitioner did not relate to either the two exceptions in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act, i.e. allegations of human rights violation or corruption..Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court..Holding that the CIC’s conclusion was erroneous, the Court held that there could be “little doubt” that the petitioner’s application seeking the IB Report pertained to an allegation of human rights violation..“There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty. It is the petitioner’s case that he is deprived of his liberty on the basis of false evidence and the information available in the report placed before the Home Minister would indicate the same”, the Court observed..Since the expression “human rights” is not defined in the RTI Act, the Court stated that the same could be understood in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 or the Universal Declaration of Human of 1948..The Court then clarified that any information in terms of the second proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act, can be provided to the petitioner only on the approval of the CIC after examining if such information is “relevant and material”..If the CIC, on examination of the material, finds that it is not so, the approval for disclosure of such information would not be granted, it stated..The Court further iterated that before disclosing such exempted information in terms of proviso to Section 24(1), the concerned authority must be ascertain whether or not the disclosure would be hit by the protection under Section 8 of the Act..“..it is also necessary to observe that merely because such information regarding allegations of corruption and human rights violation is not excluded from the purview of Section 24(1) of the Act, does not necessarily mean that the said information is require to be disclosed….…Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.”.The Court thus decreed,.“In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.”.The petitioner was represented by Advocate Arpit Bhargava. IB was represented by Advocates Rahul Sharma and CK Bhatt..Read the Judgment: