RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Matters Under Investigation
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46 |
CIC/AD/A/2012/000348 (308.37 KB) 
|
17 Apr, 2012 | T.S. Raju Vs. Southern Railway, Chennai Section 8(1)(h) – Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation – The Applicant filed his RTI application seeking information in respect of a charge memorandum issued to him based on certain report of the office of the CVO, Southern Railway, Madras – the Commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report might put the lives of the persons, who contributed in the investigation process, at risk. This category of information is barred under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure with regard to these details to the Appellant. |
| 47 |
CIC/AT/A/2010/001202/SS (193.61 KB)
|
10 Apr, 2012 | Vijay Dayaram Chauhan Vs. O/o the Commr. Of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Section 8(1)(h) – Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant at Point No. 1 to 8 relates to an on-going investigation against M/s. Balaji Services, Indore, which attracts the provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies provided to the appellant by the respondent. |
| 48 |
CIC/SS/A/2011/001939 (194.87 KB)
|
04 Apr, 2012 | Shri Dipesh Choudhary Vs. Delhi Police, East District The appellant had filed an application seeking Case Diary; Statement of Witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C.; Disclosure Statement of accused; photograph (s) of the dead body and copy of etc. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information which happends to be about more than 20 years ago. Section 8(3) |
| 49 |
CIC/LS/A/2011/003580 (36.95 KB)
|
03 Apr, 2012 | V.D. Sharma Vs. MES, Bhopal The Commission held that the view taken by the CPIO regarding paras (i) & (ii) (two letters of other office) of the RTI application is not sustainable in law. As long as the CPIO is holding/maintaining the requisite information, he has to decide whether it is disclosure to the appellant or not. He simply cannot evade his responsibility by advising the appellant to obtain the requisite information from the originator. The CPIO’s decision is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose this information. Departmental enquiry has since been completed, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be invoked at this stage. |
| 50 |
CIC/SM/A/2011/000311 (205.42 KB)
|
27 Mar, 2012 | R. Venkataraman Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Kerala Section 8(1)(h) – Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation The Commission held that since the matter is pending trial before the competent court, the CBI cannot be expected to disclose the report which, as the Respondent clarified, contains analysis of the available evidence, witnesses, and strategies to be employed for prosecution and the weakness and strength of the case without seriously impeding their attempt to prosecute the offenders. |
| 51 |
CIC/SM/A/2011/000396 & 397 (208.26 KB)
|
23 Mar, 2012 | Maj. Gen. Vinay Kumar Singh (Retd.) Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Section 8(1)(h) – Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation The Commission held that the CIC has already held that documents which form part of records of the investigating officer in a criminal case pending trial should not be disclosed before the completion of the trial in order to ensure that the prosecution is not adversely affected. In any case, it is understood that whatever record or evidence is relied upon by the prosecution is also made available or van be made available to the accused by the court of law. |
| 52 |
CIC/SM/A/2011/000682 & 1790 (208.76 KB)
|
21 Mar, 2012 | Krishan Lal Mittal Vs. Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Section 8(1)(h) – Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation The Commission held that in all such cases, once the prosecution is over and the competent court has passed its orders, the copies of the file noting relating to the sanction of persecution should be disclosed without any fear of such information impeding the prosecution of the offender. Invoking the provisions of sub-section 1(g) can be justified only if there is anything on record to believe that the disclosure of the information would result in the identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence or would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Therefore, we are not very convinced that the file noting in these cases could be denied so summarily by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act. |
| 53 |
CIC/AD/A/2012/000542 (309.13 KB)
|
16 Mar, 2012 | S.K. Nagarwal Vs. North Western Railway, Headquarters Office, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur The Commission held that PIO had objected to was the copy of the complete vigilance file which was sought by the Appellant in his RTI application, which at this stage anyway cannot be provided since the disclosure would impede the process of prosecution of the appellant which is apparently ongoing. The Dy. CVO seems to be willing to provide all the information to the Appellant once the investigation has been completed and the case is closed. The Commission therefore, finds no reason for initiating penalty proceedings against the PIO cum Dy. CVO in this case. |
| 54 |
CIC/SM/A/2010/001432/SG/14809 (52.27 KB)
|
23 Sep, 2011 | Mr. Akshay Pant vs Public Information Officer Andaman and Nicobar Administration Directorate of Social Welfare The appellant sought certain information from the PIO part of the same was denied by PIO so claiming exemption under section 8(1)(h) without giving any justification as to how section 8(1)(h) applies — the Commission held that a mere statement that information is being denied under particular sub-section of section 8(1) cannot be considered as ground for denial of information unless some reason is provided as to how the exemption applies to the information sought by the Appellant. |
| 55 |
CIC/DS/A/2010/001905 (91.33 KB)
|
16 Sep, 2011 | Dr. N. K. Arora, New Delhi vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Delhi/Kolkata The appellant sought information from CPIO. The CPIO has, with male-fide intent denied disclosure of information to the appellant. The correct and complete information has only been furnished to the appellant by the current CPIO. Accordingly maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the former CPIO . |
| 56 |
CIC/WB/A/2010/000534DS (89.34 KB)
|
10 Mar, 2011 | Shri Brijendra Rai Vs. Deptt. Of Personnel & Trg., N. Delhi Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation – the applicant preferred RTI application before the CPIO, DOPT, New Delhi seeking complete correspondence, all file notings and outcome in respect of file relating to an inquiry. The Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO and the first appellant authority in applying the provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for denying disclosure of information as requested by the appellant. Section 8(1)(h) |
| 57 |
CIC/AD/C/2011/900001 (211.11 KB)
|
09 Mar, 2011 | Dr. Mohinder Kumar Vs. Medical Council of India (MCI) The applicant filed RTI Application seeking certain information from PIO, MCI who responded denying part of the information on the ground that matter is sub-judice in the High Court of Delhi. The Commission held that matter which is sub-judice in a court of law cannot be said to be prohibited from disclosure unless its disclosure is expressly forbidden by the court and reverted the matter to PIO to decide the matter accordingly. Section 8(1)(b). Section 8(1)(h) |
| 58 |
CIC/AD/A/2011/000244 (312.31 KB)
|
01 Mar, 2011 | Shri Satbir Singh S/o Late Shri Mool Chand Vs. Northern Railway Head quarters Office Baroda House New Delhi Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation – The applicant sought the information from the PIO Northern Railway HQ Office, New Delhi. The Commission held that any disclosure of information at the enquiry stage will impede the process of the ongoing enquiry and hence the Commission denies disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(h) |
| 59 |
CIC/SG/A/2010/000727/11701 (63.03 KB)
|
18 Mar, 2010 | Mr.Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. PIO National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology Ministry of Human Resource Development Hatia The appellant sought certain information from the PIO who denied the information under section 8(1)(h) and section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act without giving any reason. The Commission held that the Right to information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of information has to be based on the exemption under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. As per section 19(5) the onus to prove the denial was justified is on the PIO. Section 8(1) |
| 60 |
CIC/WB/A/2009/00182 (77.06 KB)
|
25 Aug, 2009 | Brig. Ujjal Dasgupta Vs. Cabinet Secretariat The Appellant sough certain information from CPIO, Cabinet Sectt. The Commission is only expected to see as to whether the claim of exemption is prima facie justified or not. The nature of information asked for by the appellant and the organization to which it relates gives credence to the claim of the Public Authority that its disclosure may affect security of the State and the pendency of a criminal trial in a competent court leaves no doubt that the disclosure of information in a matter like this may prejudicially affect national security. In view of this, the Commission is of the view that claim of exemption under both Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(h) is justified. In view of the above observations, the appeal petition cannot succeed and is hereby dismissed |
Total Case uploaded: 60