In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 1640/2020 and W.P.(C) 5588/2019) filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seeking the quashing of orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the ED to supply information to respondents, asserting that the information sought did not fall under the exemption provided in the proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005).
W.P.(C) 1640/2020:
In this case, the RTI application filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar sought information regarding the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Officer. The CPIO, invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, refused to provide the information. The CIC, disagreeing with this stance, directed the ED to supply administrative information related to the RTI application. The High Court set aside the CIC’s order, ruling that the information sought pertained only to recruitment rules, and therefore, it did not involve any human rights violation. As a result, the ED was exempted from disclosing the information under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
W.P.(C) 5588/2019:
Victim, an Assistant Legal Adviser at the Directorate of Enforcement, filed an RTI application seeking information about the implementation of an order against Mr. A.C. Singh, which involved allegations of sexual harassment. The CPIO, citing Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, denied the information. The CIC overturned this decision, stating that the exemption claimed by the ED was unjustified and untenable. The High Court, considering the nature of the information related to sexual harassment allegations, held that the non-disclosure would constitute a human rights violation. Therefore, the ED was directed to disclose the information within eight weeks.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court, while emphasizing the need to consider each case individually, provided clarity on the applicability of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. In cases involving sexual harassment allegations, non-disclosure may be considered a human rights violation, falling outside the exemption under Section 24. The court’s decisions in these writ petitions highlight the nuanced approach required when dealing with RTI applications related to different types of information.
Author Bio
