Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19-12-2017, passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’), dismissing the petitioner’s second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’), Sachin Datta, J., stated that it appeared that the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act on the ground of violation of the petitioner’s human rights, was neither raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority nor examined by the authority while rendering the impugned order. Thus, the Court remanded the matter to the CIC for a fresh determination. The Court directed the CIC to reconsider the matter, specifically considering the aspect of human rights violation/s raised by the petitioner and determining whether the information sought falls within the exception carried out in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Background
The petitioner was a practicing Chartered Accountant, residing in New Delhi. His name was included in a list of “Undesirable Contact Men” (‘UCM’) which was allegedly circulated by the CBI and subsequently published in various newspaper clippings. Thereafter, these clippings, with the CBI’s emblem on them, were uploaded on the CBI’s official website. As per these reports, government officials were cautioned against dealing with, associating with, or accepting hospitality and gifts from individuals named in the UCM list.
The petitioner submitted that the publication of this list had significantly tarnished the petitioner’s professional reputation. It was submitted that he was previously empanelled with the Income Tax Department to conduct special audits. However, since the circulation of this list in 2005, his name has been removed from the panel, thereby depriving him of crucial professional assignments and causing financial losses.
Aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the UCM list, the petitioner filed an RTI application with the Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) of the CBI, seeking specific details regarding his name’s presence on the list, the reasons for such inclusion, and the procedure followed.
On 16-09-2016, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Policy Division), who also functions as the CPIO, rejected the RTI application on the ground that the CBI was exempt from disclosing information by virtue of Section 24(1) of RTI Act. The rejection was based on a government notification, which included the CBI in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, thereby exempting it from disclosure obligations, except in matters related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
The petitioner contended that his name was arbitrarily included in the UCM list without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner submitted that the publication of the newspaper clipping on the website of the CBI in the manner aforesaid, had severely tarnished his reputation in society, causing irreparable harm to his dignity and professional standing. The unwarranted inclusion of his name in the UCM list had adversely impacted his career, depriving him of professional opportunities.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
After examination of Section 24(1) of RTI Act, the Court stated that it was evident that while Section 24(1) of RTI Act generally exempts intelligence and security organizations (including CBI as per schedule two of the RTI Act) from the purview of the RTI Act and the proviso thereof explicitly states that information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded from disclosure.
The Court stated that prima facie, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that publication of his name had resulted in a violation of human rights as the same had harmed his dignity and professional standing. Furthermore, in response to a specific query raised by this Court, the respondent’s counsel had conceded that the CBI, from time to time, compiled and maintained UCM lists. There was no dispute that the concerned newspaper clipping (showing names of some persons as UCM), was uploaded on the CBI’s official website, thereby imparting an official tinge to the same.
The Court stated that it appeared that the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act on the ground of violation of the petitioner’s human rights, was neither raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority nor examined by the authority while rendering the impugned order. Thus, the Court remanded the matter to the CIC for a fresh determination. The Court directed the CIC to reconsider the matter, specifically considering the aspect of human rights violation/s raised by the petitioner and determining whether the information sought falls within the exception carried out in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present petition.
[Vinod Kumar Bindal v. CIC, W.P.(C) 3171 of 2018, decided on 17-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Amit George, Advocate along with Siddharth Garg and Suparna Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Atul Guleria, SPP, CBI along with Aryan Rakesh and Pankaj Kumar, Advocates.
