RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exempted Organisation
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CIC/DIREN/A/2018/144407-BJ + CIC/DIREN/A/2018/144491-BJ (916.82 KB) 
|
31 Jan, 2020 | Mr. Vihar Durve vs CPIO & Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange Management) Information sought: The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points with regard to the total amount received by Nirav Modi between 2011 to 2018 through Letter of Understanding from different banks in India and abroad, the total amount/assets/properties recovered/seized, the total letter of understanding signed by from different banks in India & abroad and other issues related thereto. Decision: Moreover, the Commission also observed that in similar such matters where information was sought from organizations exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, the Hon’ble High Courts had inter alia in several decisions held as under: 1. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a similar matter in Pr. DIT (Inv) (1) vs. Ashwani Kumar, W.P.(C) 11591/2017 dated 22.12.2017 stayed the decision of the Commission wherein a direction was issued to the Pr. DIT (Inv) (1) to inform the status of the Petition/Complaint dated 12.02.2016 addressed to PMO, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the said matter, the Hon’ble High Court had also directed the Department to file an affidavit unequivocally stating that the complaint in question is a matter being investigated by the DGIT (Inv.) and not any other office of the IT Authority. Page 6 of 6 2. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision in Palwinder Sondhi v. Central Information Commission and Ors. WO (C) No. 13211 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010 had held as under: “Be that as it may, in the context of information sought, I find no fault with the reasons given in the impugned order for not supplying the information as the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act clearly provide that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the DRI, it being an organization established by the Central Government. Surely the information sought does not relate to corruption and human right violations as is evident from the nature of information sought. The order under the circumstances does not suffer from arbitrariness.” |
| 2 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/626623 (168.39 KB)
|
31 Dec, 2019 | Prashant Gwaliory vs. CPIO, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Anveshan Parisar, Char Imli, Bhopal – 462016. Information Sought The Appellant sought certified copy of the action taken on his complaint sent through e-mail on 11.03.2018. Decision CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. Commission observes that ‘’allegation of corruption’’ and ‘’violation of human rights’’ is not defined in the Act, it is thus open for the Commission to decide the veracity of allegations on both counts on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge or perception of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word ‘corruption’ or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI Applicant and ‘perception’ is certainly no ground to agitate for right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter. |
| 3 |
CIC/DVAAC/A/2018/106306/CBRUI (195.12 KB)
|
25 Nov, 2019 | Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation Information Sought The Appellant sought certified copy of all the file noting/documents/correspondences related to investigation done by CBI on corruption complaint dated 03.07.2014, bearing no. F.17/NVC/2014(356), marked to Nitish Mishra, SP(CBI) from the then CVO of AIIMS, New Delhi regarding corruption in purchase in trauma centre, AIIMS, New Delhi etc. through 4 points. Decision Commission has considered the submissions of the Appellant and supporting documents in his written submission carefully and is convinced that a prima facie case of allegation of corruption exists because the Appellant in his capacity as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) had sent reports to the Respondent Organization of “corrupt practices” prevailing in AIIMS. CVO of any public authority is a watchdog to ensure transparency and prevent corrupt practices. CPIO has grossly erred in invoking the veil of Section 24 of RTI Act mechanically without assessing the nature of information sought and the same is viewed adversely by the Commission. In this regard, reference shall be had on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi [W.P.(C) 5521/2016 & CM No. 23078/2016] dated 23.08.2017, wherein the following was held: “29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term "any information" would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause. 30. The proviso ‘Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection’ has to be read in the light of the preceding phrase ‘or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government’. 31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not.” The aforesaid ratio laid down with respect to the Intelligence Bureau is squarely applicable to the case of CBI also. In the light of above judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as on the basis of proceedings during hearing, Commission is convinced regarding “allegation of corruption” in the instant matter and the Respondent cannot take refuge of Section 24 of the RTI Act for denying information. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances discussed above, Commission directs the CPIO to provide information as sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent by the CPIO to the Commission. As regards, Appellant’s request for imposition of penalty, based on the strength of material on record as well as proceedings during hearing, Commission does not find any mala fide intention on the part of the CPIO in denying information sought in the RTI Application. No action is warranted under Section 20 of the RTI Act in the matter. |
| 4 |
CIC/CRPFO/A/2018/131557 (150.92 KB)
|
19 Sep, 2019 | Dr. Ruchika Manchanda Vs. CPIO, DG, CRPF, CGO Complex, Delhi Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), DG Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), CGO Complex, Delhi seeking information pertaining to departmental enquiry proceedings against Dr. Ruchika Manchanda, CMO (IRLA No. 3806) including, inter-alia, (i) copies of each of the correspondences as well as receipts contained in Directorate General’s (DG) document number D-IX-24 / 2008-DA-3 (CRC) relating to departmental enquiry against Dr. Ruchika Manchanda. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the instant matter relates to service matter. Further, the appellant herself admitted that she had been given an opportunity of being heard and had voluntarily participated in the disciplinary proceedings. Further, she was dismissed from service after due notice. The Commission also notes that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO CBI vs. CIC and Anr. W.P.(C) 11092/2017 & CM Nos.45346/2017, 45348/2017 & 2610/2018 dated 02.02.2018 had held as under: “8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as “violation of human rights”. 9. The expression “Human Rights” denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants. 10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression “Human Rights” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India”. 11. The expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. 12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that “No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.” 13. In view of the above, the impugned order directing the petitioner to disclose the information sought for by respondent no.2 cannot be sustained.” |
| 5 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/618466/SD (190.49 KB)
|
18 Sep, 2019 | Sitesh Kumar Singh Vs. CPIO, Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, A J C Bose Road, Kolkata Information Sought The Appellant sought information through 5 points pertaining to a corruption case vide RC No. 04(A)/2014. He specifically sought for certified copy of the complete file notings; CFSL/GEQD report on his own handwriting samples obtained; FIR registered in his name; gist of allegations against him as investigated in the referred RC etc. Decision Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of the submissions of both the parties, the moot question that arises for adjudication is whether the information sought in the RTI Application concerns allegation of corruption or not. As regards the question of applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, Commission observes that the Appellant has adequately established the allegation of corruption subsisting in the matter. CPIO’s contention that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act does not negate the fact that there were allegations of corruption which were investigated into. Besides, the fact that the Department in which Appellant is working has been intimated by the CBI to initiate necessary appropriate action against him further evinces the allegation of corruption. Moreover, it is only reasonable to accept the allegations of orruption in the matter given the fact that the averred RC case pertained to the Appellant himself and the CBI has concluded the investigation. CPIO’s contention of exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act does not hold any ground because investigation into the averred case has already been concluded. Commission hold beyond any reasonable doubt that the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption. At this juncture, Commission finds this pressing need to highlight the paradox evident in claiming the exemption of Section 24(1) of RTI Act by the anti-corruption branch of CBI. In other words, given the fact that the cases referred to/investigated/enquired by the anti-corruption branch of CBI invariably pertain to allegations of corruption only; CBI and the Commission cannot be oblivious to the imperativeness of applying a judicious rationale while assessing the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act is such cases pertaining to the anti-corruption branch. |
| 6 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/616224 (154.61 KB)
|
17 Sep, 2019 | Vipin Jain Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal Information sought: The Appellant sought details and certified copies of actions taken by CBI, ACB, Bhopal and CBI, HO, Delhi Office on his complaint dated 14.10.2017 bearing Register Letter No. RI423255415IN/RI42325545IN delivered on 20.10.2017. Decision: CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. In the instant case, Complainant has not made any specific allegation of corruption; mere assertion that matter involves corruption does not attract the proviso to Section 24 of RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter. |
| 7 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/614577/SD (118.93 KB)
|
03 Jul, 2019 | Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. CPIO, Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Information Sought The Appellant sought information regarding the action / status taken on his complaint sent to the director of CBI on several dates starting from 20/12/2016 to 13/09/2017. Decision CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. In the instant case, Appellant has not made any specific allegation of corruption; mere assertion that matter involves corruption does not attract the proviso to Section 24 of RTI Act. |
| 8 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/109651/SD (119.20 KB)
|
01 Jul, 2019 | Amol Bharat Kale Vs. CPIO, Supdt. of Police Central Bureau of Investigation, Pune Information Sought The Appellant sought clarification as to whether any investigation has been conducted against him by CBI or through any agent/organization from 1993 to 2013 etc. through 7 points. Decision CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. In the instant case, Appellant has not made any specific allegation of corruption; mere assertion that matter involves corruption does not attract the proviso to Section 24 of RTI Act. Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO’s submission. Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies. |
| 9 |
CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/156884/SD (207.25 KB)
|
08 May, 2019 | Radha Mohan Sharma Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, 1, Tilak Marg, C – Scheme, Jaipur – 302005. Information Sought The Appellant sought details of action taken on the compliant dated 08.04.2017 regarding alleged irregularities committed in allotting LPG Distributorship by officers of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Sambhar, Jaipur and in particular against Ranjeet Singh. Decision Commission observes that the reliance placed by CPIO on the earlier decisions of the coordinate benches to substantiate the view that CBI is only obliged to provide information relating to allegation of corruption against its own employees does not hold good. In this regard, reference shall be had of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi [W.P.(C) 5521/2016 & CM No. 23078/2016] dated 23.08.2017, wherein the following was held: “29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term "any information" would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause. 30. The proviso ‘Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection’ has to be read in the light of the preceding phrase ‘or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government’. 31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not.” (Emphasis Supplied). The aforesaid ratio laid down with respect to the Intelligence Bureau is squarely applicable to the case of CBI also. A copy of this order is marked to the Director, CBI reiterating the following advice issued in two earlier orders in File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180556/SD and CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180749/SD dated 29.04.2019 on the aforesaid issue: “Further, Commission finds that the incorrect connotation ascribed by the CPIO to the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act that it is only applicable to cases involving CBI’s own employees may result in gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act by the Respondent office in future. In this regard, a copy of this order is marked to the Director, CBI advising him to appreciate the necessity of sensitizing their CPIOs regarding the scope and ambit of RTI Act and that of Section 24 in particular by way of appropriate workshops etc.” As regards, Appellant’s contention in the Second Appeal that the subject matter concerns allegations of corruption, Commission does not find any substantive material on record in support of his claim. Moreover, Appellant has also not availed the opportunity of hearing to plead his case and mere claim of corruption or human rights violation is not adequate to attract the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act. |
| 10 |
CIC/NIAGE/A/2017/102237/CBRUI/SD+ (174.07 KB)
|
07 May, 2019 | S Jaiswal Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Guwahati – 786001. Information Sought The Appellant sought copy of documents through 6 points pertaining to the action taken by HOB, CBI, ACB, Betkuchi / Guwahati on his application dated 26.05.2016 followed by reminder dated 03.08.2016 and 03.10.2016 addressed to Asst. Commercial Manager working under N.F. Railway etc with respect to order dated 25.06.2015 in RC No. 3(A)/2014-GWH. Decision This bench of the Commission in an earlier decision in File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/181246/SD dated 23.04.2019 has extensively dealt with the same contention as raised by the Appellant with respect to the above referred decisions of a coordinate bench. The following was held therein: “Commission observes that the contention of the Appellant based on the earlier decision of the coordinate bench in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG dated 04.07.2011 that the Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India is erroneous, cannot be taken into consideration. It may be noted that Section 24(2) of RTI Act categorically provides as under: ‘24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.— (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security 2organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.’ Adverting to the aforesaid provision, this bench of the Commission opines that it has no locus standi in gauging the intention of the Central Government for placing CBI under the exemption of Section 24(1) of RTI Act, as it will be akin to questioning the veracity of legislative intent behind the provision of Section 24(2) of RTI Act. It is not the case that DoPT went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the averred notification and therefore for the Appellant to question the authority of DoPT in this context is completely unwarranted and preposterous. As regards the role of the Commission in interpreting Section 24 of the RTI Act, an observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014 is quite relevant, which is as under: ‘4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption....’ [Emphasis Supplied] If we squarely apply the aforesaid ratio to the case at hand, i.e if the Commission begins assessing the decision of the Central Government in having exercised its power under Section 24(2) of the RTI Act, it will also amount to carving out further jurisdiction by the CIC, which is not enshrined in the Act. Moreover, even by imputing academic undertone to the discussion on the intent of Central Government in the inclusion of CBI to the Second Schedule, Commission would be impliedly interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 24(2) of RTI Act.” The aforesaid establishes that the decision in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000117/SG dated 01.07.2011 and File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000129/SG dated 04.07.2011 is immaterial to this case. As regards, Appellant’s contention of human rights violation is concerned; the same appears to be far stretched. Yet, Commission draws Appellant’s attention to a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission And Anr. dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held as under: “8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights". 9. The expression “Human Rights’’ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants. 10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression “Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India". 11. The expression „Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied] 12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that ‘No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.’ [Emphasis Supplied] Keeping in view the totality of circumstances discussed above, Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the reply of the CPIO. |
| 11 |
CIC/DIREN/A/2018/142919-BJ (184.10 KB)
|
09 Jan, 2019 | Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs. CPIO and DD, Directorate of Enforcement Information requested Various points regarding news items published with regard to Ministry of finance and their correctness. Decision: As the public authority was exempted under the second schedule section 24 the stand taken by public authority of exemption under section 24 was approved. |
| 12 |
CIC/INBRU/A/2017/118048 (430.19 KB)
|
07 May, 2018 | Dinesh Vs Bureau of Immigration, IB ISSUE : The appellant had requested the Public Authority to provide him his own arrival and departure details as the stampings in the Passport were not legible. He required this information to defend himself in a case in which allegedly he was falsely implicated.The PA rejected his request on the ground that IB was an exempted organization under section 24 of the RTI Act and corruption/human rights violation issues were involved. DECISION : …………a man preparing for his self defense in penal proceedings exercised his basic human right. Any impediment in the same would invariably be a breach of human right. …….It is not necessary that the breach of human rights has to be conclusively proved by the information seeker. A credible allegation of breach of human right which weighs favorably with the Commission warrants disclosure of information.. Had the stamps affixed on the passport of appellant been clearly identifiable no need would have arisen for seeking information from the public authority. The present case can also be viewed as a simple case of hardship which needs a sympathetic redressal by the public authority. In the facts of the present case the applicant is not seeking information related to any third party but his own travel details to prove his innocence in a criminal proceeding. ………declining a fair opportunity to arrange for material of self defense would certainly breach the human right of the applicant. Provide complete information sought within four weeks. |
| 13 |
CIC/LS/A/2012/001368 (117.32 KB)
|
25 Jul, 2017 | SVS Gahlot Vs. PIO, National Technical Research Organisation The appellant sought information relating to implementation of an order regarding appellant’s arrears. The CPIO refused it under the provision of Section 24(1), Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005, claiming that NTRO is exempted from providing any such information. The FAA on 24.02.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide certified copies of the information as sought within 15 days and also issued shoe cause notice to CPIO, National Technical Research Organization why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him/her for illegally denying information. |
| 14 |
CIC/VS/A/2015/003303/SD (4.00 KB)
|
08 Dec, 2016 | Harendra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Project Himank Section 24 — BRO — Act not to apply to certain organizations — the Commission held that BRO is exempt under RTI Act to provide information except in cases of allegations of corruption and human right violations. It is incumbent on the part of the Organisation to ensure that there is probity and transparency in functioning of Mess for different ranks so that satisfactory service is provided to the employees. DG BRO may take corrective measures to ensure the above. |
| 15 |
CIC/CC/A/2015/901257/SD (74.83 KB)
|
24 Oct, 2016 | Anita Vashisht Vs. Defence R & D Organisation, New Delhi Section 24 Act not to apply to certain Organizations Section 24(1) proviso Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations the Commission held that in view of the supporting documents there appears to be a prima-facie case of allegation of corruption. It does not take a lot of deliberation to estimate the veracity of such dealings of a public official which have an apparent undertone of vested interest. The facts raises a reasonable doubt regarding the legality of such a deal placed by the official of DRDO and the same squarely qualifies the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as the representative of the Appellant has provided a substantial ground to prove the allegation of corruption. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information as sough in the RTI Application to the Appellant. |