welcome to Life / Physical Safety | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
1	Writ Petition Nos. 9971, 10731 and 10732 of 2013 (252.58 KB)	19 Apr, 2018	Appellants: The State of Maharashtra Vs. Respondent: The Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. RTI Application sought certified or true copies of information regarding proposal dated 26/7/06 submitted by ACP, ATS alongwith, investigation papers before Addl. DGP Shri Sanjeev S. Dayal(L. & O) for obtaining Sanction Order u/s. 23(2) of MCOC Act, 1999 and Police Manual. His application was rejected by the Information Officer resorting to provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. The applicant thereafter, approached the first Appellate Authority. His appeal was also dismissed. He approached Chief Information Commissioner by way of second appeal. This appeal was disposed of by the impugned order whereunder the petitioners were directed to give copies of the police manual to respondent No. 2 as well as upload the same on the website of the Maharashtra Police. Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP relying upon the provisions of section 8(1)(e), (g) and (h) and 8(2) submitted that the police manual is confidential document and same cannot be made available to respondent No. 2 neither the same can be uploaded on the website of the Maharashtra Police. The Hon’ble High Court judgement said “RTI Applicant in the present case is not seeking any information as contemplated under section 8(1) (e), (g) and (h). Police Manual cannot be equated with the information and therefore, there is no impediment in giving copies thereof to him. Sub-section 8(2) has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial note can be taken of the fact that police manual is Government publication and copies of same are easily available. We therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order. The petitions are devoid of any merits. The same are accordingly dismissed”.
2	CWP No. 1044 of 2014 (183.74 KB)	18 Jan, 2017	M. S. Malik vs Central Information Commission & Ors. Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The petitioner sought (a) Certified copy of the preliminary enquiry regarding recruitment in G.R.P. against the then SP/GRP/Haryana, Ambala and two Deputy Superintendents of Police who were Chairman and members of the Section Board; (b) Statement of all the witnesses recorded while conducting the preliminary enquiry; (c) Certified copy of the official case file of the CBI containing remarks/ opinion/ observations/ recommendations made by the then Director, CBI. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the petitioner, as noticed, is asking for certified copies of the official case file which would contain the remarks of the investigating officers and the supervisory remarks of the then Director, CBI. The information, as such, therefore, would necessarily fall within the ambit of sections 8(1)(g) & (h) and as such, cannot be supplied to him. The respondent-Commission has, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that by disclosing all the said information would endanger the life and physical safety of the persons apart from identifying the source of information. The information was, rightly denied, on the above grounds. Once the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain types of information provided the respondents can justify denial on the grounds that it falls under the said provisions, then the said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, as such, which would warrant interference by this Court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
3	W.P. (C) 8975 of 2015 (514.96 KB)	08 Nov, 2016	Union of India, Ministry of Railways vs Kishan Lal Meena Section 8(1) (g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. Section 8(2) Public Interest. The applicant had sought the copies of the files pertaining to investigation against Senior DME, Ajmer. The information was declined on the ground that the same was exempted under sections 8(1)(g) and (j) of the Act being personal information and there being no public interest involved. The CIC, by the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to provide the information to the respondent. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that there is no finding returned by the CIC that there is a larger public interest which justices the disclosure of the information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in the impugned order except to direct the petitioner to furnish the information. The impugned order, is not sustainable. The same is, accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
4	W.P. (C) 7431/2011 (219.60 KB)	17 Mar, 2015	Union Public Service Commission vs Dr. Mahesh Mangalat The applicant desired disclosure of personal information of the interviewers of the UPSC selection committee. The Court set aside the order of CIC in so far as directing the disclosure of the names of the Selection Committee Members along with their designation and addresses
5	Writ Petition No. 7056 of 2013 (289.92 KB)	26 Nov, 2014	Chalisgaon Education Society Vs. State Information Commissioner The issue is regarding non- implementation of the directions of the High Court to establish a multi-member State Information Commission. The single judge bench remitted the matter to Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger bench.
6	W.P. (C) 4079/2013 (307.65 KB)	10 Oct, 2013	Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors. Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosureof which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person- The RTI applicant sought the copies of office notings recorded the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the department by which its advice was sought, to the extent shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent.
7	W.P.(C) 9057/2011 (139.05 KB)	19 Jul, 2013	State Bank of India Vs. Md. Shahjahan Section 8(1)(g) – The RTI applicant desired disclosure of marks obtained in the interview and in ACR in the Departmental Examination – The Hon'ble HIgh Copurt quoted the Supreme Court of India in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2013 has held that every entry in ACR should be informed, it leaves no scope for refusing to disclose the said information under RTI Act, when information seeker is none other the public servant concerned himself. The plea seeking exemption under section 8(1)(e),(g) and (j) of the RTI Act cannot be accepted by this Court considering the view taken in Sukhdev Singh Case by the Supreme Court.

1

Writ Petition Nos. 9971, 10731 and 10732 of 2013
(252.58 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2018

Appellants: The State of Maharashtra Vs. Respondent: The Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.

RTI Application sought certified or true copies of information regarding proposal dated 26/7/06 submitted by ACP, ATS alongwith, investigation papers before Addl. DGP Shri Sanjeev S. Dayal(L. & O) for obtaining Sanction Order u/s. 23(2) of MCOC Act, 1999 and Police Manual. His application was rejected by the Information Officer resorting to provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. The applicant thereafter, approached the first Appellate Authority. His appeal was also dismissed. He approached Chief Information Commissioner by way of second appeal. This appeal was disposed of by the impugned order whereunder the petitioners were directed to give copies of the police manual to respondent No. 2 as well as upload the same on the website of the Maharashtra Police.

Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP relying upon the provisions of section 8(1)(e), (g) and (h) and 8(2) submitted that the police manual is confidential document and same cannot be made available to respondent No. 2 neither the same can be uploaded on the website of the Maharashtra Police.

The Hon’ble High Court judgement said “RTI Applicant in the present case is not seeking any information as contemplated under section 8(1) (e), (g) and (h). Police Manual cannot be equated with the information and therefore, there is no impediment in giving copies thereof to him. Sub-section 8(2) has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial note can be taken of the fact that police manual is Government publication and copies of same are easily available. We therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order. The petitions are devoid of any merits. The same are accordingly dismissed”.

2

CWP No. 1044 of 2014
(183.74 KB) pdf icon

18 Jan, 2017

M. S. Malik vs Central Information Commission & Ors.

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
The petitioner sought (a) Certified copy of the preliminary enquiry regarding recruitment in G.R.P. against the then SP/GRP/Haryana, Ambala and two Deputy Superintendents of Police who were Chairman and members of the Section Board; (b) Statement of all the witnesses recorded while conducting the preliminary enquiry; (c) Certified copy of the official case file of the CBI containing remarks/ opinion/ observations/ recommendations made by the then Director, CBI.
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the petitioner, as noticed, is asking for certified copies of the official case file which would contain the remarks of the investigating officers and the supervisory remarks of the then Director, CBI. The information, as such, therefore, would necessarily fall within the ambit of sections 8(1)(g) & (h) and as such, cannot be supplied to him. The respondent-Commission has, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that by disclosing all the said information would endanger the life and physical safety of the persons apart from identifying the source of information. The information was, rightly denied, on the above grounds. Once the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain types of information provided the respondents can justify denial on the grounds that it falls under the said provisions, then the said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, as such, which would warrant interference by this Court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

3

W.P. (C) 8975 of 2015
(514.96 KB) pdf icon

08 Nov, 2016

Union of India, Ministry of Railways vs Kishan Lal Meena

Section 8(1) (g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. Section 8(2) Public Interest. The applicant had sought the copies of the files pertaining to investigation against Senior DME, Ajmer. The information was declined on the ground that the same was exempted under sections 8(1)(g) and (j) of the Act being personal information and there being no public interest involved. The CIC, by the impugned order, has directed the petitioner to provide the information to the respondent.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that there is no finding returned by the CIC that there is a larger public interest which justices the disclosure of the information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in the impugned order except to direct the petitioner to furnish the information. The impugned order, is not sustainable. The same is, accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

4

W.P. (C) 7431/2011
(219.60 KB) pdf icon

17 Mar, 2015

Union Public Service Commission vs Dr. Mahesh Mangalat

The applicant desired disclosure of personal information of the interviewers of the UPSC selection committee.

The Court set aside the order of CIC in so far as directing the disclosure of the names of the Selection Committee Members along with their designation and addresses

5

Writ Petition No. 7056 of 2013
(289.92 KB) pdf icon

26 Nov, 2014

Chalisgaon Education Society Vs. State Information Commissioner

The issue is regarding non- implementation of the directions of the High Court to establish a multi-member State Information Commission.

The single judge bench remitted the matter to Chief Justice to place the matter before a larger bench.

6

W.P. (C) 4079/2013
(307.65 KB) pdf icon

10 Oct, 2013

Union Public Service Commission Vs. G.S Sandhu & Ors.

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosureof which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person-
The RTI applicant sought the copies of office notings recorded
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the department by which its advice was sought, to the extent shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent.

7

W.P.(C) 9057/2011
(139.05 KB) pdf icon

19 Jul, 2013

State Bank of India Vs. Md. Shahjahan

Section 8(1)(g) – The RTI applicant desired disclosure of marks obtained in the interview and in ACR in the Departmental Examination –
The Hon'ble HIgh Copurt quoted the Supreme Court of India in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2013 has held that every entry in ACR should be informed, it leaves no scope for refusing to disclose the said information under RTI Act, when information seeker is none other the public servant concerned himself. The plea seeking exemption under section 8(1)(e),(g) and (j) of the RTI Act cannot be accepted by this Court considering the view taken in Sukhdev Singh Case by the Supreme Court.