ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000293/SG/12346Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000293/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
Sr. Correspondent, Live India,
Premnath Motors Complex,
1, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi- 110001.
Respondent: : Mr. Anil Palta
CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi
Central Bureau of Investigation
5th Floor, CBI HQ, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
RTI application : 24/09 /2010 (two RTI applications were filed)
PIO reply : 18/10/2010
First appeal : 22/10/2010
FAA order : 19/11/2010
Second appeal : 20/12/2010
Information sought:
RTI application 1:
I am specifically looking for a copy each of the legal opinions expressed by the agency’s director’s of
prosecution concerning the bank fraud cases filed by the agency against Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal.
Information sought: A copy each of the legal opinion (full report) given by the concerned director/s of
prosecution (DOP) after the discharge of Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal from the two cases flied against him by
the agency in connection with alleged bank fraud.
RTI application 2:
I am specifically looking for information on the two bank fraud cases filed by the agency wherein Mr.
Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the agency: however, he was later exonerated by the concerned
courts.
1. A copy each of the charge sheets wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
agency in connection with the bank fraud case/s.
2. A copy each of the judgments delivered by the concerned court/s that exonerated Mr. Sant Singh
Chatwal in both the cases filed by CBI.
3. A copy each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor/s SSPs
DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of the cases
after Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.
4. A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after he
was exonerated by the concerned courts.
5. A copy the final orders passed/recommendations made by the former and present directors CBI in
connection with either of the cases wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
agency.
Page 1 of 4
PIO’s reply:
For both RTI applications:
2. With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that. apart from the two cases which
were disposed off, two more cases, which are inter connected with the cases already disposed off, are
pending under trial before the same court. Hence, the information cannot be supplied to you and
exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is claimed.
Grounds for First appeal:
Wrong denial of information.
FAA order:
The undersigned upholds the grounds on which CPIO, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi denied to provide the
information sought by the appellant as it falls u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act,2005 because two more cases which
are connected with the already disposed of ones are pending trial before the same court.
Grounds for Second appeal:
The case is very old and admittedly there is no investigation underway. It is clear from the response of the
CPIO, BS&FC. CBI also, “With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that, apart
from the two cases which were disposed off, two more cases, which are interconnected with the cases
already disposed off, are pending under trial before the same court. Hence the information can not be
supplied to you and exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is claimed.” It reads ‘two more
cases.., are pending under trial before the same court.” It did not say that the investigation is under way.
A charge sheet by an investigative agency is a public document and same is true with orders of a court of
law. I believe, if CBI wanted to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act and not suppress the information
concerning a high profile NRI hotelier, ideally it should have provided me the copies of charge sheets and
court orders regarding both the cases without any delay.
In this context, it is my view, that the agency has deliberately and wrong invoked the section 8 (1) h of the
RTI Act as a pretext to deny me the information about a high profile non resident Indian.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 May 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
Respondent: Mr. S. V. Raman, Superintendent of Police on behalf of Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & HOB of
BS&FC Delhi;
“The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) of the
RTI Act. A very peculiar claim was made that though the two cases for which information was being
sought have been discharged, there are two other fraud cases which are being pursued in which some of
the Bank Officers are the same. No evidence has been given as to how giving the information would
impede the prosecution of offenders. Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of, “information
which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.” No claim
has been made that any investigation is continuing, and the fact that some bank officers are being
prosecuted in two other matters cannot justify refusal to give information in the matters relating to Mr.
Sant Singh Chatwal. The Respondent states that some of the documents relied in both the case are the
same. The Appellant has not sought documents relating to the case directly. The respondent was asked if
documents sought at query-01 and 02 were not public documents. The Respondent agrees that what has
been sought in query-01 & 02 are public documents.
Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of information has to be based on
definite reasons which can be explained.
Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114/2007- “13. Access to
information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section
Page 2 of 4
8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be
interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders.
It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release
of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the
opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands
for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal
interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in
Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on
the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in
their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2)
SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy
1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”
Frivolously refusing information by claiming one of the 10 exemptions in Section 8(1) without giving
explanation is an unwarranted denial of citizens’ fundamental right. No proper explanation has been given
for denying the information.”
Commission’s Decision dated 11 May 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
30 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of denying the information by the PIO without any justification
in the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. It
appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being
issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
not be levied on him.
The PIO Mr. Anil Palta will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 June 2011
at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi;
The respondent has given a written submission in which he admits that denying the charge sheet
and the copies of the judgment was an error of judgment and this information has now been provided to
the Appellant. The Appellant acknowledges that he received these. As regards the following three:
(i) “A copy of each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor/s,
SSPs, DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of
the cases after Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.
(ii) A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after
he was exonerated by the concerned court/s.
Page 3 of 4
(iii) A cop of the final orders passed/recommendations made by the former and present Directors of
CBI in connection with either of the cases wherein Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused
by the agency.”
The respondent states that CBI intends challenging the decision of the Commission in a writ before the
High Court. The Commission sought the view of the respondent on whether a statutory authority’s order
could be defied without the valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission would like
CBI to give its opinion on this matter before it takes a decision. It is felt that when public authorities or
citizens do not implement orders given by the Statutory Authority without obtaining a stay as per the law
this could create a very unhealthy situation. The respondent states that he would like to consult the
prosecution cell of CBI before answering the query of the Commission.
The appellant has given his submissions on 06/06/2011 in which he has stated that the CBI has not
followed the decision of the Commission. The appellant has pointed out the following:
1- As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act (which was mentioned in the order given by the
Commission) the PIO should have provided the information free of cost since the information
was being provided after the period of 30 days. Instead he was asked to despite Rs.286/- to get
part of the information which CBI was willing to give.
2- The Appellant states that he believes that since there was no stay on the order of the
Commission the CBI should have implemented.
3- The Appellant believes that there must be some pressure on CBI because of which the
Commission’s order was not implemented.
The respondent states that once the information is parted with CBI would not be able to retrieve it and
CBI believes that the decision of the Commission must be challenged in a writ since the information is
covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission is adjourning the matter until 29 June 2011. The PIO will then present his argument on
whether the actions of CBI in not implementing the order is legally justifiable. The matter will be held on
29 June 2011 at 04.30PM.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO will refund the amount of Rs.286/- charged illegally, to the Appellant
before 15 June 2011.
The Commission also directs the PIO Mr. Anil Palta to present himself before the
Commission on 29 June 2011 at 04.30PM to present his argument before the
Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
09 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)
Page 4 of 4