Case Law Details
Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs Central Information Commission (Delhi High Court)
Where a public authority takes recourse to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. The word ‘impede’ would mean anything that would hamper or interfere with the investigation or prosecution of the offender.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIC shows that it relies upon the other orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of the CIC. It notes that in criminal law, an investigation is completed with the filing of the charge sheet in an appropriate court by an investigating agency but in cases of vigilance related inquiries and disciplinary matters, the word ‘investigation’ used in Section 8 (1) (h) of the Act should be construed rather broadly and should include all enquiries, verification of records, and assessments. In all such cases, the enquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report from the investigating/enquiry officer. Based on the said position, the impugned order has accepted the plea of the respondent and disallowed the information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
As noted above, the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question. In the impugned order, there is no attempt made whatsoever to show as to how giving the information sought for would hamper the investigation and the on-going disciplinary proceedings. The impugned order concludes that a charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case by the CBI but in the disciplinary proceedings the matter is still pending. Based on this fact simplicitor the impugned order accepts the plea of the respondent and holds that the Section 8 (1) (h) is attracted and the respondents are justified in not giving information to the petitioner. No reasons are spelt out as to how the investigation or prosecution will be hampered.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the order has taken a stand which is contrary to the settled legal position by this court as noted above. I, accordingly, quash the impugned order of CIC and remand the matter back to CIC for consideration afresh in terms of the above noted legal position.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
