CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,

Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000821

Dated 14.03.2017

Appellant : Shri K. Nagaraj,

Qtr No.-VI/3, Police House,
Kunjaban Township,
Agartala-799 006,
West Tripura.

Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,

Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

Date of Hearing : 23.02.2017

Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal:

RTI application filed on : 06.11.2015

CPIO’s reply : 07.12.2015

First Appeal filed on : 18.02.2016

FAA’s order : 01.04.2016

Second Appeal filed on : 05.05.2016

ORDER
1. Shri K. Nagaraj filed an application dated 06.11.2015 under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on six points
pertaining to an inquiry instituted against him under Rule 8 of AIS(D&A)
Rules,1969 and the prosecution sanction issued against him for filing a charge
sheet in the court of Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad u/s 19(1)(b) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CIC/SB/A/2016/000821 Page 1
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 05.05.2016 before the
Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has refused to provide information
on point nos.4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application as the same attracts the provision
of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri K. Nagaraj was present through video conferencing.

The respondent was not present despite notice.

4. The appellant submitted that in response to his RTI application, the

respondent vide letter dated 07.12.2015 has denied the information on point
nos. 4 to 6 of the RTI application under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The FAA
had, vide order dated 11.04.2016, upheld the reply of the CPIO. The appellant
further submitted that the exemption from disclosure of information under
Section 8(1)(h) is applicable only in a situation where the information is likely to
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The appellant submitted that the existing decisions on the subject also stipulate
that the public authority is to demonstrate that the information, if disclosed
would hamper or interfere with the investigation or prosecution or apprehension
of the offender. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner
disclosure of such information would impede the investigation or prosecution or
apprehension of the offender. The appellant further submitted that neither the
FAA nor the CPIO have explained as to how the disclosure of information would
impede investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender. In this context,
the appellant submitted that the Commission in its order no.
CIC/VS/A/2014/003729/SB dated 14.01.2016 had directed the respondent to
provide the documents sought by the appellant since the respondent has not
been able to show how the disclosure of file notings would impede the process of
prosecution of the offender. In view of the above, the appellant submitted that
information/copies of documents sought for in point nos.4 to 6 of the RTI
application should be provided to him.

CIC/SB/A/2016/000821 Page 2
Decision:

5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and

perusing the records, finds that the CPIO and the FAA while denying information
to the appellant have nowhere explained how the disclosure of information
relating to point nos.4 to 6 of the RTI application would impede the process of
investigation or prosecution or apprehension of the offender. The Commission
also observes that in the matter of B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of
Delhi High Court: W.P(C) 295/2011 the Hon’ble court has held that:

“…A public authority which seeks to withhold information available

with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature
specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act,
which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the
Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by
the public authority that the information sought “would impede the
process of investigation.” The mere reproducing of the wording of the
statue would not be sufficient when recourses is had to Section 8 (1)
(h). The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the
disclosure of such information would impede the investigation…”.

6. The Commission notes that in point no.6 of the RTI application, the
information sought relates to copies of note sheets, wherein approval of the
competent authority for filing the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge for
CBI cases at Hyderabad under Section 19(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 was granted. In this regard, the Commission observes that since the CBI
is exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act, the proposal relating to issue of
sanction order, submitted by it to the Government is also exempted from
disclosure as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act which states that “Nothing
contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations
specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central
Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that
Government …..”.

CIC/SB/A/2016/000821 Page 3
7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to (i) provide
information sought on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application to the appellant
and (ii) provide information sought on point no.6 of the RTI application after
redaction of information submitted by the CBI to MHA in this regard. The above
directions shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy

(V.K. Sharma)
Designated Officer

CIC/SB/A/2016/000821 Page 4