Case Law Details
As is clear from the arguments of Mr. Bhushan, whole attempt was to say that divulgence of ACR is in public interest. That is precisely the CIC is asked to find out. The matter is still at large and the appellant can always argue this before the CIC. What is important is that the procedure under Section 11(1), which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for.
If that officer, in the present case the Ex Member of CESTAT, pleads private defence that defence has to be examined while deciding the issue as to whether the private defence is to prevail or there is an element of overriding public interest which would outweigh the private defence. The judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to by Mr. Bhushan was also cited before the learned Single Judge, who rightly remarked that it is the judgment of this Court in Arvind Kejriwal (supra), which binds this Court.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA No.22 of 2012
Pronounced on: April 20, 2012
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
