|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/INBRU/A/2017/118048||07 May, 2018||Dinesh Vs Bureau of Immigration, IB
ISSUE : The appellant had requested the Public Authority to provide him his own arrival and departure details as the stampings in the Passport were not legible. He required this information to defend himself in a case in which allegedly he was falsely implicated.The PA rejected his request on the ground that IB was an exempted organization under section 24 of the RTI Act and corruption/human rights violation issues were involved.
DECISION : …………a man preparing for his self defense in penal proceedings exercised his basic human right. Any impediment in the same would invariably be a breach of human right. …….It is not necessary that the breach of human rights has to be conclusively proved by the information seeker. A credible allegation of breach of human right which weighs favorably with the Commission warrants disclosure of information..
Had the stamps affixed on the passport of appellant been clearly identifiable no need would have arisen for seeking information from the public authority. The present case can also be viewed as a simple case of hardship which needs a sympathetic redressal by the public authority.
In the facts of the present case the applicant is not seeking information related to any third party but his own travel details to prove his innocence in a criminal proceeding. ………declining a fair opportunity to arrange for material of self defense would certainly breach the human right of the applicant.
Provide complete information sought within four weeks.
|2||CIC/LS/A/2012/001368||25 Jul, 2017||SVS Gahlot Vs. PIO, National Technical Research Organisation
The appellant sought information relating to implementation of an order regarding appellant’s arrears. The CPIO refused it under the provision of Section 24(1), Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005, claiming that NTRO is exempted from providing any such information. The FAA on 24.02.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide certified copies of the information as sought within 15 days and also issued shoe cause notice to CPIO, National Technical Research Organization why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him/her for illegally denying information.
|3||CIC/VS/A/2015/003303/SD||08 Dec, 2016||Harendra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Project Himank
Section 24 — BRO — Act not to apply to certain organizations — the Commission held that BRO is exempt under RTI Act to provide information except in cases of allegations of corruption and human right violations. It is incumbent on the part of the Organisation to ensure that there is probity and transparency in functioning of Mess for different ranks so that satisfactory service is provided to the employees. DG BRO may take corrective measures to ensure the above.
|4||CIC/CC/A/2015/901257/SD||24 Oct, 2016||Anita Vashisht Vs. Defence R & D Organisation, New Delhi
Section 24 Act not to apply to certain Organizations Section 24(1) proviso Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations the Commission held that in view of the supporting documents there appears to be a prima-facie case of allegation of corruption. It does not take a lot of deliberation to estimate the veracity of such dealings of a public official which have an apparent undertone of vested interest. The facts raises a reasonable doubt regarding the legality of such a deal placed by the official of DRDO and the same squarely qualifies the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as the representative of the Appellant has provided a substantial ground to prove the allegation of corruption. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information as sough in the RTI Application to the Appellant.
|5||CIC/LS/C/2013/000057/SD||03 Aug, 2016||Anand Kumar Vs. Defence R & D Organisation, New Delhi
Section 24 Act not to apply to certain Organizations Section 24(1) proviso Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption human rights violations DRDO the Commission rejected the contention of the Appellant that denial of service related information amounts to violation of human rights and upheld the submission of the CPIO.
|6||CIC/VS/A/2015/000102/SB||07 Jun, 2016||T.R Dagar vs Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi
Section 24 Act not to apply to certain organisations. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
The Commission held that it is aware that under section 24(1) r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, CISF has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the CISF except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian v Adarsh Sharma) had held that:
“5. .. ...if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, 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 Right to Information Act....
It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not....
The fact that the respondent has already provided some information to the appellant, the Commission would like the CISF to consider the request of the appellant and provide information to the extent possible to the appellant.
|7||CIC/VS/A/2015/000585/SB||02 Jun, 2016||Lal Bahadur Ram vs Assam Rifles, Shillong
Section 24 Act not to apply to certain organisations. Assam Rifles.
The Commission held that Assam Rifles has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per section 24(1) of the RTI Act except in cases of corruption and human rights violations. The information sought by the appellant does not pertain to any operational, technological or technical issues of the Assam Rifles and relates to the number of vacancies for the posts of Barber, cobbler, washermen, painter, cook and sweeper in the year 2011.
The Commission observed that the CIC vide order No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001290 dated 28.082012 held that "Suffice to say that it has been the consistent view of this Commission that exemption is available to the exempted organization only in respect of technical/ technological/ operation matters and not in respect of establishment related matters". The Commission directed the respondent to provide information as sought by the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
|8||CIC/CC/A/2015/002634||18 May, 2016||S. Saraswati Vs. Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi
Section 24 — Act not to apply to certain organization — Cabinet Secretariat —
The appellant stated that she wanted to know that under what circumstances her candidature was not considered for the post of Ayah for the direct recruitment during financial year 2006-07 & 2007-08 — the Commission held that the sought for information can be provided to the appellant using suitably severability clause in section 10(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, information as per request in the RTI application but there shall be no obligation to disclose details relating to third parties and any details which impinge on the security of the organisation.
|9||CIC/SA/C/2016/000089||21 Apr, 2016||Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. Ministry of Environment & Anr
Section 24 Act not to apply to certain organizations Intelligence Bureau.
The Commission held that both the CPIO's have put forward stale and feeble defences without understand the purport of section 24, in spite of interpretational directions by High Courts. Claiming that he was duty to follow provisions of RTI Act, the CPIO of MoEF has selectively cited one High Court order conveniently ignoring judgments of several High Courts which very lucidly explained that there are several categories formation need to be given even by the organizations exempted under section 24 of the Act. The IB report more a secret, as it has already gone in to public domain with Government filing affidavits in Courts of law, media coverage, RTI applications and responses thereof.
Thus on questions of fact and of law, the IB report cannot be withheld from appellant. The Commission directed the IB or MoEF to provide certified copy IB report relating to the appellant, sought through RTI application.
|10||CIC/SS/A/2013/001025||18 Dec, 2013||Pulumoni Duwarah Paul vs Indo Tibetan Border Police Force
The appellant through her RTI application sought copy of preliminary inquiry report which was conducted in relation to death of her newly born female baby due to negligence of doctors in the ITBP Base Hospital. The CPIO denied information under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act.
The Commission held that there is a merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that she may be provided a copy of ROE in respect of departmental enquiries against the doctors and staff nurse, since this is a matter concerning life and liberty and hence falls under the category of human rights violation as contained in proviso (1) of section 24 of the RTI Act. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get a copy of ROE as sought for through her RTI application. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide an authenticated copy of ROE, which has been completed against two doctors and one staff nurse, to the appellant free of cost.
|11||CIC/SS/A/2013/000809||02 Dec, 2013||G. Mammen vs Seema Suraksha Bal
The appellant states in his RTI application that he was an employee of Dandakaranya Project of Government of India under Ministry of Home Affairs during the period from 5.1.1962 to 13.4.1977 and that he did not receive his pensionary benefits based on his service rendered. The appellant also states that as per Judgement dated 25.8.2000 of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and Judgment dated 12.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India many employees of the Central Government under Ministry of Home Affairs who rendered a minimum service of ten years or above have been paid proportionate pension. The appellant sought to know from the respondent at point no. (1) whether any official under MHA resigned or otherwise left service after rendering service of a minimum of ten years of service has been paid minimum pension. At point (2) the appellant sought to know whether beneficiaries of the Judgment referred to above have since been paid pension and at point (3) the appellant sought to know the dates of payment of pensionary benefits to the said beneficiaries of Judgement. 3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated31.8.2012 wherein the respondent stated that BSF is an exempted organisation as per section 24 of the RTI Act.— the Commission held that the information sought mainly pertains to service matter ie. pension benefits etc. The information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The appeal disposed off accordingly.
|12||CIC/SM/C/2011/001564||14 Sep, 2012||Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
The appellant sought information relating to the appointment of Sh. Sanjeev Tripathi in the RAW which is an exempted organization. Hence, requested information cannot be disclosed – it is contended that the appointment under the Central Government are made with the approval of the competent authority and in terms of the Recruitment Rules framed specifically for each post. The Commission held that there is no doubt that while the details about his other appointments in the RAW made by the organization itself need not be disclosed, his appointment as Secretary of that organization will have to be disclosed having been processed in the Cabinet Secretariat or any other public authority of the Government. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat to provide the copies of all the desired records and documents in respect of appointment of Sh. Sanjeev Tripathi as Secretary to the RAW.
|13||CIC/SM/A/2011/001528||24 May, 2012||Nitin Nayyar v Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
Section 24 — Act not to apply to certain organizations — Inclusion of CBI in the second schedule to the RTI Act
The Commission held that since all the RTI applications had been filed prior to the notification of June 2011 by which the CBI had been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act, none of these applications could be rejected on the basis of that notification.
|14||CIC/WB/A/2010/000095-SM||31 Mar, 2011||Shri Laxman Prasad Kushwaha Vs. CPIO Cabinet Sectt.
The Appellant had sought some information from the Cabinet Secretariat CIC/WB/A/2010/000095¬SM (EA II) section, otherwise known as RAW.
CIC held that the public authority in this case is an organisation placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In terms of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it except in cases of allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The present case does not fall within either of these categories and, therefore, the organisation is not obliged to disclose the desired information. There is no merit in the appeal. It is, thus, disallowed.
|15||CIC/WB/A/2010/000093 & 239-SM||31 Mar, 2011||Shri V K Mittal Vs. CPIO, National Technical Research Organisation
CIC agreed with the contention of the Appellant that, ordinarily an organisation like the NTRO included in the second schedule is not required to disclose any information. However, in this case, the CPIO had decided to disclose part of the information and had promised to provide the remaining after getting it from the relevant divisions. Even the Appellate Authority had directed the CPIO to provide the remaining information within a specific time period. Therefore, we think that the orders of the Appellate Authority should be carried out. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the remaining information in both the cases to the Appellant within 15 working days of the receipt of the order unless any of the information is otherwise exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act.