Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), seeking to challenge the order dated 25-11-2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) allowing an appeal filed by the Respondent herein and directing the CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi to provide certified copies of all the file noting/ documents/ correspondences related to the investigation done by CBI on corruption complaint regarding purchase in Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. Subramonium Prasad, J., rejected CBI’s blanket exemption claim and held that CBI is not totally exempted from RTI Act and information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations must be provided to the applicant seeking disclosure of information.
The respondent in his capacity as a Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) at AIIMS sent a report regarding corrupt practices in the purchase of fogging solution and disinfectant for the Medical Store, JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS. According to the Respondent, no action was taken by the CBI on the information, which was given by the Respondent, and, therefore, the Respondent approached the CPIO, CBI. The said information was denied because the CBI is an organization specified in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act read with Section 24 of the Act, and, therefore, the RTI Act does not apply to the organization. The Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority also rejected the Respondent’s appeal on the same ground which led to the Second Appeal. Before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Respondent therein being the Petitioner in the present writ petition stated that the investigation in the matter was already completed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shared the relevant information of the case with the Respondent. The Petitioner herein, who is the Respondent before the CIC, raised the plea that since the name of the CBI figures in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act do not apply to the CBI.
The Court noted that a perusal of Section 24 of the RTI Act shows that even though the name of the organization is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire Act does not apply to such organizations. The proviso to Section 24 permits information on allegations of corruption and human rights violation to be made available to the applicant and the same cannot be included in the exception provided to organizations mentioned in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act. There is nothing on record other than stating that investigations involve a sensitive process and providing information regarding inquiries/investigations will lead to public persons interfering with the matters that are within the province of the CBI. The law imposes on the Petitioner the duty to inquire if such disclosure is permitted to the public at large, then it would result in extending powers to the public which even the judiciary does not possess.
The Court further noted that the petitioner has sought information regarding his complaint alleging corruption in the purchase of fogging solution and disinfectant in the store of JPNA Trauma Centre in AIIMS. This is not a case where sensitive information has been collected by the CBI and the disclosure of which would be prejudicial for the officers involved. This is also not a case where information is so sensitive that it cannot be shared with the public at large. The very purpose of the proviso is to permit information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations to be provided to the applicant. The petitioner has levelled allegations regarding corruption in the purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solutions at JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi and this case, therefore, does not deal with any kind of sensitive investigation.
The Court concluded that in the absence of anything on record to demonstrate that the investigation regarding malpractices in the purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution in JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi will expose the officers and other persons involved in the investigation which can endanger their life or would jeopardize any other serious investigation, the Court held that it is not in a position to accept the argument of the CBI in the facts of this case, however, in appropriate cases, it is always open for the CBI to establish that the information sought for regarding a particular investigation is sensitive and on considering the nature of sensitivity involved and keeping in mind the object of Section 24 of the RTI Act and keeping in mind the purpose for which Section 24 was brought in the statute book, it is always open for the CPIO to refuse grant of such information.
[CPIO, CBI v Sanjeev Chaturvedi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 692, decided on 30-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP-CBI with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Mr. Abhishek Batra, Mr. Ripu Daman Sharma, Mr. Vashisht Rao, Mr. Syamantak Modgill and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Manoj Khanna, Ms. Shweta Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Chandel, Advocates for respondents
