ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sun, Dec 08, 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
31 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.
32 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.
33 CIC/SM/A/2012/000863 & 847
(208.50 KB) pdf icon
11 Jan, 2013 A Sethu V.S. CPIO, Madras High Court, Chennai- 600104, CPIO, Calcutta High Court, Kolkata, West Bengal

Information disclosure of Which would impede the process of investigation – the appellant sought information in respect of some vigilance records which he was allowed to inspect, but was denied the copies of those records on the ground that it was exempt from disclosure under the provision of sub-section 1(h) of section 8 of the RTI Act

The Commission held that it is rather strange that the CPIO should deny the copies of records already inspected. If the CPIO was of the view that the information contained in this file could not be disclosed since the investigation was under way and that such disclosure would impede the investigation, he should not have allowed even the inspection of the records. Having allowed inspection of the records, it would be unfair not to provide the copies of the records. The core issue is access to information; such access can be through inspection and also by getting the copies of the records. One cannot preclude the other.
34 CIC/WB/A/2010/000581 & 776-SM
(206.30 KB) pdf icon
08 Jan, 2013 K Thakshinamurthy V.S. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Nugambakkam, Chennai-600006

Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation- section 24- Act not to apply to certain organisation CBI- the appellant had provided some factual information but had denied to disclose the copies of the correspondence made by the CBI with the sanctioning authority including the draft sanction order it had sent on the ground that it would impede the process of prosecution.


The Commission held that while we agree with the CPIO that the SP’s report forwarded by the CBI at the time of seeking sanction cannot be disclosed as it contains information which might adversely affect the prosecution pending before the trial court, the same cannot be said about the draft sanction order, of any, sent by the CBI to the competent authority at the time of seeking sanction for prosecution. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide a copy of the draft sanction order, Since in this case, information has been sought pertaining to allegations of corruption, it would be covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act and the CBI cannot refuse such information on the ground that it has been included in the second schedule of RTI Act.
35 CIC/SM/A/2012/000083
(205.93 KB) pdf icon
15 Oct, 2012 Shri S. Girijashankar Vs. CPIO, O/o. the Comptroller & Auditor General of India

The Appellant had sought the copies of some records. the Commission held that the case pending before the CAT is neither in the nature of an investigation nor prosecution of an offender as contemplated under the above exemption provision, therefore, it is not open to the public authority to deny such information merely because a case is pending before the Tribunal. Section 8(1)(h)
36 CIC/SS/A/2012/001222
(195.55 KB) pdf icon
14 Sep, 2012 Shri Mohinder Singh Sidhu Vs. Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi

The commission agreed with CPIO for not providing the information. Section 8(1) (g) and (h)
37 CIC/SM/A/2011/001801 & 1820
(209.29 KB) pdf icon
09 Jul, 2012 Shri Nitin Goel Vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India

The respondents pointed out that even though the SEBI held the office copy of the pleadings, the original records had become the property of the Bombay High Court having been filed there in connection with the writ petition and that the SEBI could no longer decide to disclose these on its own – the Commission held that the desired information relates to the pleadings made by the SEBI before the Bombay High Court in connection with writ petitions pending before it. CIC opined that, it is for the relevant court to decide on the disclosure of the record based on the specific rules and orders that it might have framed. The Appellant is advised to approach the Bombay High Court for getting the copies of the pleadings made by the SEBI, if he so desires. Section 8(1)(h)
38 CIC/LS/A/2011/001518/BS/0422
(55.19 KB) pdf icon
06 Jul, 2012 Dhal Singh v BSNL, New Delhi

Section 8 (1) (h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The Commission held that in the past it has ruled that in criminal law an investigation can be said to be complete with the filing of charge sheet in the appropriate court by the investigating agency and hence the plea that investigation would be impeded by disclosing the information is not sustainable.
39 CIC/SS/A/2012/000666
(193.28 KB) pdf icon
29 Jun, 2012 Dr. Naveen Yadav v Delhi Police

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The Commission held that it has repeatedly held that if a complaint has been filed against a person, the contents of such complaint are no more treated as confidential. This is so because the complaint has been filed to set the machinery of the State in motion and if the competent authority acts upon it, for example, by lodging an FIR, a copy of the complaint will have to be supplied to the person complained against. A person complained against has a right to obtain a copy of that complaint, irrespective of whether counselling has been initiated on the basis of that complaint.
40 CIC/LS/A/2011/004161
(34.21 KB) pdf icon
26 Jun, 2012 Ashish Pushkarna v Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The respondent submitted that the CBI investigated the scam and has filed a charge sheet against a number of accused persons and the matter is presently pending trial. The appellant has got no concern with the trial. The requested information is barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act
The Commission held that we are inclined to agree with the submission of respondent that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution. Decision of the CPIO and AA is upheld.
41 CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242 Adjunct
(55.37 KB) pdf icon
19 Jun, 2012 Suresh Chandra v Department of Post, Etah, U.P.

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

The Commission held that Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes a procedure to be followed in case of third party information and cannot be used as an exemption for non-disclosure. Further, the FAA claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for non-disclosure of the information( FAA stated
that since an enquiry is going on u/s 10 against Mr. Sunil Kumar and u/s
14 against Mr. Komal Singh), the information cannot be furnished u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, however, he has not been able to establish how the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information. The Commission directed the PIO to provide correct and complete information to the appellant along-with compliance report to the Commission
42 CIC/LS/A/2011/003441
(30.83 KB) pdf icon
19 Jun, 2012 Asha Rani Taneja v HPCL

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The Commission held that the denial of copy of the enquiry report is not justified since the enquiry into the complaint has since been concluded. This being so, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not-attracted. Hence, the enquiry report prepared by CVO of HPCL becomes disclosable to the appellant.
43 CIC/LS/A/2011/002875
(32.94 KB) pdf icon
30 May, 2012 S. Kasimayan v o/o Joint Secy. (Trg.) & CAO/MoD

Section 8(1)(h) — which would impede the process of investigation
The appellant sought copies of file notings relating to the sanction of prosecution accorded against him — on the other hand, the officers of the MoD have contended that disclosure of requested information will be prejudicial to the prosecution case and that disclosure of such information is barred u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act
The Commission held that there is no error or illegality in the orders passed by the respondents exemption under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act nor any procedural unreasonableness can be inferred.
44 CIC/LS/A/2011/003406/BS/0242
(53.27 KB) pdf icon
24 May, 2012 Suresh Chandra v Department of Post, Etah, UP

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The Commission held that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.
45 CIC/SM/A/2011/001464
(204.60 KB) pdf icon
24 May, 2012 D C Gupta v Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation
The Commission held that when a particular matter is under trial, records such as the case diary cannot be disclosed as it has the potential to impede the prosecution of the offender. This category of information clearly comes under the exemption provision cited above. Therefore, we see no merit in this appeal.
Total Case uploaded: 60