ISTM Logo Here

Saturday, January 19, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Matters Under Investigation
Supreme Court(Matters Under Investigation)/ High Courts(Matters Under Investigation)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/181299-BJ 06 Aug, 2018 KS Jain Vs DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise

ISSUE : The applicant sought information pertaining to the report on the basis of which his complaint against a third party was closed. His request was rejected under section 8(1)(J) by the public authority. And also on the ground that larger public interest in disclosure could not be brought out by the applicant.
DECISION : The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant could not establish larger public interest in disclosure nor the information could be disclosed as it related to a third party and was covered under section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
2 CIC/DGITV/A/2016/290774/BJ 25 Jul, 2017 Mr. Yogendra Mittal Vs. CPIO, O/o the Dte. Gen. of Income Tax (Vig.), New Delhi

The Appellant sought information on 18 points (a to s) pertaining to inclusion of his name in the ‘Agreed List’ prepared by the CBDT, copies of all circulars/ instructions/ OMs followed by CBDT while preparing ‘Agreed List’ of its officers, exact date on which his name was included in the ‘Agreed List’ in the year 2013 and issues related thereto.

CIC agreed with the order of CPIO.
3 CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/306137 20 Jul, 2017 Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs. CPIO Delhi Police, O/o ADCP-cum-PIO, South West District, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi

The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the DCP, South West District, Delhi Police seeking information on six points pertaining to Case No. 881/15, P.S. Najafgarh, including, inter-alia, (i) the number of witnesses that have been examined in Case No. 881/15 so far and (ii) whether the statements of the witnesses who were examined in this case have been recorded in writing or not.

The Commission, observed that since the investigation in the matter has now been completed, copies of statements recorded can be provided to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, Outer District, Delhi Police to provide certified copies of the statements of the witnesses, recorded in connection with case no. 881/2015, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Shri Lokesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector, South West District Delhi Police shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the CPIO, Outer District, Delhi Police for compliance.
4 CIC/KY/A/2016/001027 24 Mar, 2017 Amit Ranjan, New Delhi Vs. Central Public Information Officer Dir.(EP) M/o External Employment & P.G.E.,New Delhi

The respondent stated that the appellant has been replied to vide letter dated 02.05.2016 that that the case is under investigation. The information cannot be provided to him as it would impede the process of investigation and was denied under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the case is now in its final stage and chargesheet is being filed. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
5 CIC/MCOAL/A/2016/302091 26 Dec, 2016 C K Singhania vs Ministry of Coal, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation.

The Commission held that a mere apprehension in the mind of CPIO that disclosure of information would impede investigation or prosecution cannot substitute a subjective opinion formed on the basis of cogent material. The information sought is simple and basic and there is no embargo to put the same in public domain. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the CPIO is directed to furnish complete information on the three distinct RTI applications under reference.
6 CIC/MP/A/2016/001413 12 Dec, 2016 Pawan Kumar Singhal vs Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra

Section 8(I)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation — the Commission held that the first stage advice of the CVO is disclosable information as per the instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission. The Commission, therefore, directed the CPIO to provide first stage advice of the CVO to the appellant within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. As the investigation report conducted by the erstwhile NBI was not available with the respondents, hence could not be provided to the appellant.

The Commission also recommended to the respondent authority to expeditiously finalize disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
7 CIC/VS/C/2015/900128 09 Dec, 2016 Ashwin Shukla vs West Central Railway, Jabalpur

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation.

The Commission directed the respondents to provide information with regard to vigilance investigation conducted against the complainant and has been completed using severance clause under section 10 of the RTI Act and if so required, severe those parts which might compromise the sources of information and third party information.
8 CIC/YA/C/2016/000034 15 Nov, 2016 Sanjeev Kapoor vs NTPC Limited, Delhi

Section 6(1) Request for Information

Can a citizen insist on seeking information under the Right to Information Act even if the same can be accessed through some other alternate channel or mode? The Commission in various pronouncements had held that the right to seek information under the RTI Act does not get eclipsed due to availability of an alternate channel to seek defence documents. The issue of availability of alternate channels to access information has been dealt by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. vs State Information Commission Kerala & Anr.

(B) Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would the process of investigation — What is the extent of applicability of section 8(1)(h) in the cases of ongoing disciplinary proceedings? — the Commission held that the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately chosen the word 'which would', reflecting that the only eventuality flowing from such disclosure would necessarily result in impeding the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Thus, the public authority must exhibit cogent material to support that disclosure would necessarily impede the process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Had the legislature intended to cast a blanket cover in all such cases, it would have used the expression 'which could impede'. Upon a plain reading of the statute, the Commission is left with no doubt that the onus to exhibit imminent & real threat of impeding process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders is cast upon the respondents.
9 CIC/CC/A/2015/004390/BS/11011 08 Aug, 2016 Vimal Prakash Vs. Department of Income Tax, Baroda

Section 8(l)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation — the appellant filed RTI application and sought the certified copies of all pages of his service book — the Commission held that it must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge." The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide copy of applicant's service book to him.
10 CIC/CC/A/2014/000526/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/000521/SD 25 Jul, 2016 Dhiren Shah vs Indian Army

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation.

The Commission held that inspection had already been allowed to the appellant earlier therefore there is no reason to deny inspection at this stage. CPIO has not provided any ground on the basis of which section 8(1)(h) is attracted. Mere statement that the matter is sub-judice is no ground for seeking exemption under section 8(1) (h). The Commission directed the respondent to provide full inspection to the appellant of relevant records/ files.
11 CIC/MP/A/2016/000056 CIC/MP/A/2016/000532 30 Jun, 2016 N.K Aggarwal vs The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Section 8(I)(h). Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant in his instant RTI application pertains to his own claim and not of any third party, He has right to know the reasons, as available in the records of the insurance company, for repudiation of his claim as he is the one who has been 'adversely affected' by the decision of the insurance company. Therefore, the plea taken by the public authority that disclosure of information sought by the appellant would harm the competitive position of the public authority as third party does not hold good and cannot be sustained. Similarly, the claim of fiduciary relationship, which has been made by the respondents at this stage only, is not persuasive in view of the reasons stated above.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application on payment of the requisite fee.
12 CIC/MP/A/2016/000133 30 Jun, 2016 Nityananda Pramanik vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Behrampur

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation

The Commission held that a charged employee has a right to obtain information pertaining to documents on the basis Of which he is charged. The appellant should have approached the respondents' higher authorities in this regard, instead of pursuing the matter under the RTI Act.
13 CIC/CC/A/2014/903022/SD 06 Jun, 2016 Lt. Col Shailendra Grover vs Headquarters Central Command

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation

The Commission rejected the submission of the CPIO and directed him to provide copy of note sheets of processing of Prosecution Sanction in HQ Central Command and letter of Central Command sent to Army HQ recommending appellant's prosecution sanction in respect of CBI cases.
14 CIC/YA/A/2014/003353/BJ 19 May, 2016 Prabhat Gopalan VS. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is exempted under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act till the completion of inquiry.
15 CIC/CC/A/2014/001216-YA 01 Apr, 2016 S. Vaikundarajan vs Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation

The Commission held that in the facts of present appeal, clause (h) of section 8(1) is not attracted. The decision relied upon by the respondents is factually distinguishable inasmuch in the present appeal, mere pendency of civil writ proceedings could not be treated synonymous to expression, 'prosecution of offenders' as contained in clause (h) of section 8(1) of the Act. The respondents have grossly failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them u/s 19(5) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to furnish the information as sought.
Total Case uploaded: 54