STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

Justify denial of information; don't merely cite exemption clause: CIC to CBI

Section 8(1)(h) allows a public authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which would impede the process of an investigation or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Published: 09th November 2020 02:19 PM  |   Last Updated: 09th November 2020 02:19 PM   |  A+A-

Central Bureau of Investigation. (File photo | PTI)

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the CBI to provide a justification for denial of information on the ground that the disclosure might impede an ongoing investigation or the prosecution of an accused and not merely cite the relevant clause in its RTI response.

Information Commissioner Vanaja N Sarna directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to provide a cogent explanation while citing the exemption clause -- section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act -- on how a disclosure of information would adversely affect an investigation or prosecution.

Section 8(1)(h) allows a public authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which would impede the process of an investigation or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The Delhi High Court, in the Bhagat Singh case, had clearly held that merely citing the exemption clause is not enough and a public authority must justify how a disclosure of information would attract the section as disclosure was the rule while withholding information was an exception.

Sarna was hearing the case of an RTI applicant, who had sought to know the status of a preliminary enquiry by the CBI in the MSME Development Institute in Chennai.

The CBI, in a number of cases, has denied the information by merely citing the section, without giving any justification how a disclosure of the information would impede its investigation or prosecution.

"The Commission observes upon a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO had merely invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without providing any justification as to what inquiry was pending as on the date of their reply or as to how the disclosure of the information would have impeded the process of the inquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders," Sarna noted.

She agreed with the petitioner, S Harish Kumar, that the disclosure of the status and outcome of the case as available at the relevant time would not have impeded the process of the averred inquiry by any measure.

"Pertinently so, the representative of the CPIO also failed to provide any substantial submissions regarding the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act during the hearing," Sarna said.

She directed the CBI CPIO to provide a revised reply to Kumar, incorporating a "cogent explanation" justifying the applicability of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act with respect to the information sought in the application.

"In addition to this, the CPIO is directed to provide the available information regarding the status and outcome of the case as referred to in the RTI application," Sarna said.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

IPL_2020
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp