ISTM Logo Here

Saturday, January 19, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Exempted Organisation
Supreme Court(Exempted Organisation)/ CIC(Exempted Organisation)
S.No. HIGH COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 WP (C) 7439 of 2012 07 Sep, 2017 CBI vs CJ Karira

The plain reading of the proviso (first proviso to section 24(1)) shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term “any information” would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organisations.
2 WP (C) 5521 of 2016 23 Aug, 2017 CPIO, IB Vs Sanjeev Chaturvedi

The plain reading of the proviso (first proviso to section 24(1)) shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term “any information” would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organisations.
3 W.P. (C) 6030/2013 & CM Appl. 13275/2013 26 Feb, 2016 CBDT, M/O Finance, Revenue Department, North Block Vs. Central information Commission & Anr.

CBDT, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 24th June, 2013 and 14th August, 2013 passed by respondent No. 1- CIC that if failed to appreciate that petitioner was an exempted organisation under the RTI Act and could not be compelled to disclose information sought for in the RTI application.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner is an exempted organisation under the RTI Act. Even the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and/or Human Rights Violation.
4 W.P. (C) No. 642 of 2015 02 Feb, 2016 Shri Phairembam Sudesh Singh Vs. The State of Manipur, through the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Man.

The petitioner has questioned and challenged the validity and correctness of the decision dated 26-06-2015 taken by the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur wherein the information was denied under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
The High Court held that, that the information sought for by the petitioner have nothing to do with the sensitive and confidential activities undertaken by the Police Department, Government of Manipur and therefore, the same cannot be denied to him.
The writ petition is allowed and consequently, the decision/order dated 26-06-2015 passed by the State Chief Information Officer, Manipur Information Commission, is quashed and set aside with the direction that the respondent shall provide the information sought for by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5 Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 2987 and 3087 of 2015 And M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 1 of 2015 24 Feb, 2015 Jose Dhanapaul Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Nagercoil. Periannan Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Nagercoil.

The petitioners sought copy of DVAC manual. The question was whether DVAC Manual, which is a non-statutory administrative guideline for conduct of investigation, is to be treated as information under RTI, whether it is to be exempted under sec 8.

The Court directed the DVAC to upload the DVAC Manual in their website within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and update the same from time to time without any delay.
6 LPA 229/2014 11 Mar, 2014 Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors.

Section (24) Act not to apply to certain organizations- DRDO. The information that was sought by the appellant / petitioner pertained to her service record which has nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or human rights violations, therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge held that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act.

The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that it is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act. That being the position, the provisions with regard to penalty under section 20 of the said Act would also not apply. The Act itself does not apply to the DRDO, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Appeal dismissed.
7 W.P. (C) 83/2014 03 Feb, 2014 Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors.

Section 24 act not to apply to certain organizations DRDO. Section 19(8) seeking direction for award of compensation for supply of inaccurate and incorrect information Section 20(2). In the second appeal the CIC held that the DRDO is an exempted organization under section 24 of the RTI Act. This exemption is unequivocal and binding. DRDO does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. Even so, by custom, this Commission had carved out a small jurisdiction for supply of establishment related information to the information seekers, to the total exclusion of tactical and strategic information. Even, if the appellant's contention that detriment has been caused to her due to supply of inaccurate and incorrect information is accepted, in my opinion, it would not be legally sound either to punish Sh. Bundela or to award compensation to the appellant. The Petitioner submitted that despite categorical finding by the Commission that the provision of the RTI Act had been abused by the respondents for oblique purpose of justifying punitive transfer, the Commission erred in not recommending disciplinary action under section 20(2) of RTI Act against respondent as well as in not awarding compensation to the petitioner.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption. Further held that this Court is normally not open in writ jurisdiction to tamper or vary the punishment that has been awarded by the CIC. Writ Petition dismissed.
8 W.P. (C) 7453/2011 09 Oct, 2013 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Adarsh Sharma

Section 24(1) –Act not to apply to certain organizations-Intelligence Bureau – the respondent sought the following information from CPIO of the MHA with respect to one Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas;
1. Whether Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas is alive or dead?
2. Has he left India on 10.10.2009 for overseas?
3. What was his destination?
-Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information sought by the respondent was neither any information related to the allegations of corruption in Intelligence Bureau nor an information related to the human rights violations. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing the Intelligence Bureau to provide the said information to the respondent under provision of RTI Act.

Observation of High Court:
If an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the IB, the agency would be well advised in assisting a citizen by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of RTI Act.
9 W.P. (C) 5959/2013 16 Sep, 2013 Directorate General of Security & Anr. Vs. Harender

No violation of human rights is involved in service matter, such as promotion, disciplinary action, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing supply of said information to the respondent.
10 CWP No. 4965 of 2011 28 May, 2012 Neeraj Kush VS. State Information Commission Haryana and Ors.

Section 24(4) — Act not to apply to certain organizations
The petitioner moved an application before the State Public Information Officer/respondent No. 3, requesting therein for supply of certified copy of complaint filed by one Sh. Mukesh Malhotra, the then Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, against Sh. Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney for violation of human rights because of misbehaviour and maltreatment — this information was refused by respondent No. 3, on the ground that the Criminal Investigation Department has been exempted from— providing information under the RTI Act as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the State of Haryana under section 24(4) of the RTI Act — against this order, petition preferred first appeal before the Authority under the RTI Act which on the same grounds rejected the claim of the petitioner — the order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 3, under the RTI Act. The same has also been rejected, on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and has no locus standi in the matter and the complaint also does not indicate any violation of human rights.
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that is in agreement with the opinion expressed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, as the petitioner is a stranger and, thus third party, as defined under section 2(n) of the RTI Act. Information qua the third party can only be provided by the competent authority it is of the opinion, if the public interest in disclosure of the same outweighs in importance, any possible harm and injury to the third party. A person when approaches this Court the writ jurisdiction has to satisfy its bonafides before any equitable relief can be claimed him under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court exercised under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In any case, as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information rightly been declined by the State Information Commission as the same is exempted under the said provision also. The present petition is totally misconceived and lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner which calls for appropriate action by the court as the petitioner has approached this court not with clean hands but for some ulterior reasons, may be to rake up his personal vengeance etc. thus calling for imposition of costs. The present writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
11 W.P.No.14788 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 09 Sep, 2011 S. Vijayalakshmi vs Union Of India.

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the notification No.GSR 442(E), dated 09.06.2011 exempting CBI from the purview of the RTI Act, as being ultra vires section 24 of the RTI Act, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
12 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1138/2010 08 Mar, 2011 ESAB INDIA LIMITED versus SPECIAL DIRIECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR

The Applicant challenged the provisions of Section 24 excluding intelligence and Security oganisations from the provisions of RTI Act. High Court dismissed the appeal.
Total Case uploaded: 12