Issue:
Whether the IB report as sought by the RTI Applicant from the Intelligence Bureau, falls within the scope of human right violations and would, therefore, Section 24(1) be inapplicable to it?
Background:
In the year 2006, the RTI Applicant, was arrested in relation to Mumbai Train Blast Case (7/11 blast case) by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. In the year 2009, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) came out with a report (IB report).
According to the RTI Applicant, the IB report indicated that, it was Indian Mujahideen (IM) and not the others accused including the RTI Applicant who were responsible for the 7/11 blast case. He, therefore, sought from Central Public Information Officer/IB (CPIO), a true copy of the IB report for review of evidence in 11.07.2006 Mumbai bomb blast case.
The CPIO denied the information on the ground that IB is an exempted organization under Section 24(1)[2] of the RTI Act.
The Applicant filed a first appeal asserting that, Section 24(1) would not be applicable in his case, as, his query related to violation of human rights and would thus fall under the exceptions carved out under Section 24(1). However, the same was also rejected.
Thereafter, the Applicant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC). CIC, too, rejected the appeal on the ground that the query raised by the Applicant is not related to allegations of corruption or human rights violation.
The Applicant approached the Delhi High Court and submitted that “he had been falsely implicated in the 7/11 blast case by fabrication of evidence and was awarded the capital punishment on the basis of false and fabricated evidence. According to him, this would clearly fall within the scope of human rights violation”
Reasoning and observations of the Delhi High Court:
- Section 2(1) (d) of the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993, defines human rights as “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”
- The Applicant’s query pertains to allegation of human rights violation as the human rights would include life and liberty and it is the Applicant’s case that he is deprived of his life and liberty on the basis of false evidence and that, the information in the IB report would indicate the same.
- CIC’s conclusion is erroneous as the information does relate to human rights violations.
- In cases of information relating to allegations of violation of human rights, such information can only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission.
- While doing so, CIC will have to examine whether the information sought is otherwise not exempt under Section 8.
Decision of the CIC set aside:
The Delhi High Court set aside the decision of the CIC and remanded the matter back to the CIC to consider it afresh having regard to the observations made by it.
CIC’s decision dated 11.06.2019:
CIC heard the matter anew. During the hearing, IB submitted that there is no such IB report. Consequently, CIC directed IB to file an affidavit deposing that no such Intelligence Bureau report was submitted to the MHA in year 2009 as sought by the RTI applicant.
_________________________________________________________________________
[1]WP (C) No. 9773/2018, High Court of Delhi dated 16.1.2019.
[2] 24. (1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
25 Comments
Comments are closed.