ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 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
16 CIC/MP/A/2016/000133
(53.97 kB) pdf icon
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.
17 CIC/CC/A/2014/903022/SD
(137.48 kB) pdf icon
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.
18 CIC/YA/A/2014/003353/BJ
(342.88 kB) pdf icon
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.
19 CIC/CC/A/2014/001216-YA
(446.81 kB) pdf icon
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.
20 CIC/SH/A/2015/000173
(210.71 kB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2016 Sanjay Dixit vs IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

The Commission held that mere pendency of a matter in a court or tribunal cannot become the ground of denial of information. No court of law or tribunal has expressly forbidden disclosure of the information. Section 8(1)(h) does not apply in this case as there is no case of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The Appellant has sought a copy of the legal report of the bank's panel advocate, based on which the loan was granted. Such information cannot be provided as it involves a fiduciary relationship, covered by section of the RTI Act.
21 CIC/MP/A/2015/001406
(120.28 kB) pdf icon
29 Feb, 2016 Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation the Commission held that the respondents have not been able to justify as to how providing copies of the note sheet relating to suspension and termination order will impede the ongoing CBI enquiries and prosecution that providing the copies of file notings relating to suspension and termination of the appellant as CMD, Syndicate Bank, does not affect the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders as claimed by the respondents and directed the CPIO to provide file notings relating to the suspension and termination of the appellant after severing any third party information and names of officials who dealt with the case as per section 10 of the RTI Act, without disclosing the background papers.
22 CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/00028/SH
(316.76 kB) pdf icon
05 Feb, 2016 P. Kishan vs Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

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

The Commission held that no court of law or tribunal have expressly forbidden disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant/ Complainant in the RTI application and further, the disciplinary proceedings are already over and there is no ground to invoke section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
23 CIC/VS/A/2014/001450/SB
(339.72 kB) pdf icon
14 Jan, 2016 Amit Towar Vs. 0/0 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime , New Delhi

Section 8(1)(h) Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation the Commission held that the investigation in the matter relating to FIR Nos. 186 and 188/2013 PS Crime branch is still pending, therefore, disclosure of information, at this stage, would be detrimental as it would hamper the investigation. The disclosure of information has been rightly denied by the respondent under section of the RTI Act.
24 CIC/MP/A/2014/001168
(118.98 kB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2015 Lalu Varghese Vs. State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram

The appellant sought copy of enquiry report on his complaint addressed to the Chairperson, SBI and action taken report pertaining to his complaint on sexual harassment of his wife at work place. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as the disclosure of information at that point of time would impede the process of investigation.

The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.
25 CIC/MP/A/2014/000657
(271.85 kB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2015 S K Choubey Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur

The appellant sought copies of all the documents related to Marine Claim. The CPIO asked the appellant about his relation with the marine claim whether it was registered in his name or in someone else’s name. The respondent further submitted that the appellant had sought the claim papers i.e. Surveyor’s report of a 3rd party i.e. Genus India and the matter under litigation before the Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) against the OICL. The disclosure of the information had denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

The Commission held that the public authority cannot deny information on the ground that it would weaken its case before the court if it discloses the information to the very party who it is contesting in the court proceeding. The Commission directed the respondents to provide a copy of Surveyor’s report to the appellant.
26 CIC/BS/A/2014/000213, 000228
(78.40 kB) pdf icon
20 Jan, 2015 Majit Singh Bali Vs. CPIO, Department of Posts

The appellant sought authorised copies of notings and correspondence (certain pages) in file pertaining to sanction of prosecution; statements of persons, witnesses recorded during a certain period of inquiry; etc., which were not provided to him by the CPIO citing section 8 (1) (h) of the Act, treating that the information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation.

The CIC held that the information sought cannot be denied under principles of natural justice. As the charge sheet having already been filed on completion of investigation, there can be no apprehension that the disclosure would impede the progress of investigation. While supplying the information, if felt necessary, CPIO may severe from the notings, the date, name and designation of the persons recording the noting.
27 CIC/SA/A/2014/000615 CIC/SA/A/2014/000616
(466.19 kB) pdf icon
14 Jan, 2015 Mukesh Sharma Vs. DTC

The appellant, who himself has been facing disciplinary charges, sought fourteen points of information in respect of a complaint made by him against two DTC Officials.

The CIC observed that the appellant is not trying to protect his personal right or right to employment or right to fair trial. But he is unleashing his private vengeance against senior colleagues who are either inquiring or informing or complaining or giving evidence against him. Such information would fall under exempted category under sec 8 (h) , as this would not only impede the investigation or inquiry against him, nut also impede the inquiring against all such erring employees who will be immorally encouraged or tempted to use RTI for this private, illegal and vengeful purpose.

The CIC held that sufficient information has been given to the appellant in both the appeals and wards the appellant not to file RTI applications as a counter-measure to inquiry against him. If any such RTI application is filed in future by him or by anybody on this subject, the DTC shall refer to this order and reject the same. The Commission directs that this order has to be prominently displayed in the website and at any conspicuous place in the office under the caption of ‘misuse’ red in colour.
28 CIC/LS/A/2012/001069-SS
(120.75 kB) pdf icon
23 Oct, 2013 Korada Sreenivasa Rao vs Department of Scientific & Industrial Research

The appellant sought information regarding disclosure of the file noting, correspondence etc. in relation to two disciplinary proceedings against him- the CPIO has denied the information to the appellant mainly on the ground of asking information which is not specific and for asking for the entire record.
Decision
The Commission held that although the appellant has been allowed inspection of the file in relation to his dismissal of his service, the Commission is of the view that the two chargesheet against the appellant has ow conclude, the respondent shall provide the file noting in relation to the said chargesheet after deleting/hiding the names of the officers in view of their security and related issue
29 CIC/BS/A/2012/001548/3625
(48.94 kB) pdf icon
04 Oct, 2013 R. P. Srivastava vs CPIO Department of Posts

The appellant stated that he had detected fraudulent claims in the TS bills claimed by one Mr. Devilal for the period January, 2009 to April, 2010 and wants copy of the note-sheets and the file pertaining to the matter- the CPIO stated that an inquiry has been conducted and the matter has been referred to the higher authorities for approval of further action, hence the information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision
The Commission held that the mere pendency of investigation/inquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information would 'impede' of even on lesser threshold 'hamper or 'interfere' with the inquiry/investigation. The burden the respondent has failed to discharge besides the appellant has contended that the matter relates to corruption a contention, which the respondent has not been able to dispute. The information is disclosable in larger public interest.
30 CIC/LS/A/2012/002157 CIC/LS/A/2012/002158 CIC/LS/A/2012/002159
(38.34 kB) pdf icon
15 Jan, 2013 S.K. Sahni V.S. Indian Army

Information discloser of which would impede the process of investigation- on the basis of certain anonymous complaints, a Court of Inquiry was held against the appellant. The GCM held him guilty for various facts of omission and commission and inflicted punishment of imprisonment of three years. The punishment inflicted on him was confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff and thereafter promulgated by GOC 11 Corps
The appellant have sought information regarding the foresaid proceedings conducted against him at various levels during the period 2005 to 2010. As the CPIO had refused to disclose this information both under section 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act citing reason that the proceedings are in progress against Co. (Retd.) Pramod Kumar and Col. (Retd.)V.K. Pant and are pending in the same mater and, therefore, disclosure of requested information would impede the pending proceeding
The Commission held that the proceeding have been completed against the appellant in all respect and, therefore, section 8(1)(h) is not attracted. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 9.11.2012 has held that the section 8(1)(e) is not attracted in Col. V.K. shad case and other case, The proceedings against the appellant have been completed in all respects an that disclosure of requested information will not cause any prejudice to the proceedings pending against Col. Pramod Kumar and Col. Pant and requested information, including JAG opinion is not barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Total Case uploaded: 58