CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00912
Dated, the 03rd February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Kuldeep Sood
Respondents : Directorate of Enforcement
This matter came up for hearing on 02.02.2009. Appellant was present in
person. Respondents were represented by Shri R.K. Rawal, Assistant Director
and Shri V.P. Gogia, Assistant Director (HQ).
2. This appeal originated in appellant’s RTI-application dated 27.11.2007
comprising the following query:-
“The above named person (Shri Ravi Singhal S/o Sh.Vivek Singhal R/o 2,
Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi) was arrested by FERA authorities
on 13.4.1993 under section 9. The following information and copies of
documents may be supplied to me for the purpose of filing in the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi / Bombay”
There were 10 sub-queries to the main query as quoted above.
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 20.12.2007, informed appellant
that as the respondents herein, viz. the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) were an
exempted organization under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI
Act, they were not obliged to furnish information to the appellant to his
RTI-application dated 27.11.2007. There were some correspondence between
the appellant and the First Appellate Authority, the latter claiming that the
first-appeal was never filed by the appellant.
4. Appellant has challenged this conclusion of the respondents claiming that
as he had brought up allegations of corruption against the respondents in the
determination of a penalty of Rs.3.3408 crores in a FERA case, he was covered
by the exception to the rule in Section 24 of the RTI Act, which provided that
information can be disclosed in respect of the exempted organizations if there
were allegations of corruption, or human rights violations, against the exempted
public authority.
5. During the hearing, respondents stated that he has challenged the above
order of the respondents in the Appellate Tribunal and has also taken up the
AT-03022009-05.doc
Page 1 of 4
matter before the High Court. It is the appellant’s allegation that this heavy
penalty under FERA has been imposed on him by the Directorate of Enforcement
in order to “let off the real culprit, namely said Shri Ravi Singhal who is a
politically influential person, and the information sought by the appellant and its
refusal and the illegal levy of the above said penalty of more than Rupees three
crore on the appellant is the violation of the human rights of the appellant”.
He further urged that “the above information and documents were required by
the appellant for the purpose of filing an appropriate petition in the Bombay &
the Delhi High Courts to expose the corrupt practices of the Enforcement
Directorate in illegally exonerating the real culprit, i.e. said Shri Ravi Singhal
and by implicating illegally the appellant in the above stated case”. He claims
that the records and the documents requested by him through his RTI-petition
were needed “for the purpose of seeking justice from the Hon’ble Courts.”
6. Respondents have countered the appellant’s plea by stating that the fact of
allegations of corruption is nothing more than afterthoughts by the appellant.
Nowhere in his RTI-application did the appellant mention that there were any
allegations of corruption against human rights violation against the respondents.
On becoming aware that disclosure of information in respect of exempted
organizations can be authorized by the Commission in the face of allegations of
corruption, appellant has used this ploy to force the respondents to provide him
information knowing full well that Section 24 exempted the Enforcement
Directorate ⎯ the respondents ⎯ from disclosure obligation.
7. When this was put to the appellant, he stated that he raised this point only
when he became aware that RTI Act contained such a provision. He said that
mere fact that he had not raised a plea about corruption, or human rights
violation, earlier than the second-appeal could not be held against him in denying
to him his right to receive the requested information.
8. As regards the appellant’s contention that the heavy three-crore-rupees
penalty on him was imposed by the respondents in order to take the heat away
from the real culprit, one Shri Ravi Singhal, respondents stated that appellant’s
allegation was entirely baseless. The penalty on the appellant was imposed on
him after considering the evidence in that specific case and the public authority’s
adjudication order contains the details of the case as well as the reasons for
imposing the penalty. This order is entirely justiciable. They further pointed out
that how wrong is the appellant in charging the respondents for allegedly
favouring Shri Ravi Singhal, whom appellant describes as the real culprit, is
obvious from the fact that the Enforcement Directorate’s case against Shri Ravi
Singhal is presently in progress. It was, therefore, entirely disingenuous on part
of the appellant to say that respondents had allowed to let off Shri Ravi Singhal
in order to wrongly implicate the appellant.
AT-03022009-05.doc
Page 2 of 4
Decision:
9. On the basis of what the appellant has submitted, I am not persuaded that
he has made out a case to deny to the respondents the exemption granted to them
under Section 24 of the RTI Act. The respondents are a public institution
charged with the responsibility of combating a certain type of foreign exchange
violations. They perform this task as a quasi-judicial authority ⎯ a fact not
denied even by the Counsel of the appellant ⎯ and the orders which they pass
are subject to appellate scrutiny. In fact, appellant has already embarked on the
appellate route to challenge the imposition of penalty on him by the Enforcement
Directorate. To deduce from the fact that the penalty has been imposed on the
appellant and not someone else ⎯ who the appellant beliefs to be the real culprit
⎯ cannot be a reason to draw a conclusion about that penalty having been
imposed due to corruption, or in violation of the appellant’s human rights. Such
a deduction would be entirely far-fetched.
10. Apart from the above, the word ‘allegation’ used before the terms
corruption and violation of human rights in Section 24 of the RTI Act, cannot be
construed to mean that anyone who utters the word corruption becomes entitled
to get information despite the exemption granted to the public authorities.
Commission in its decision dated 16.07.2008 (in Kalu Ram Jain Vs. Directorate
of Enforcement; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01260) on the subject of the
interpretation of the word ‘allegation’ occurring in this section had stated as
follows:-
“14. Allegation of corruption and human rights violation in the context
of this Section should be construed to mean ‘verifiable allegations’, that is
to say, not mere charge of corruption or human rights violation, but
supporting material that such charge in terms of its evidentiary value had
strength. Whether the allegations have evidentiary support is to be
determined by the circumstances of those allegations and evidence
produced by a party. It is, therefore, the Commission’s view that
allegation of corruption and human rights violation should be construed
not merely in terms of whether somebody has chosen to make those
allegations, but in terms of prima-facie evidence that such allegations
would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was a possibility of these
allegations being true. For that, not only the allegations but also the
surrounding evidence needed to be examined.”
11. In the light of the above, the appellant merely calling the quasi-judicial
determination of penalty against him as being motivated by corrupt motive
cannot be given much credence. There have to be weighty and verifiable
grounds before the Commission in order to persuade the Commission to deny to
AT-03022009-05.doc
Page 3 of 4
a public authority listed in Second Schedule to the benefit of exemption under
section 24 of the RTI Act. I’m afraid in the present case, these do not exist.
12. I’m, therefore, in agreement with the respondents that no ground has been
made by the appellant to entitle him to the requested information revoking the
exemption enjoyed by the respondents under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
13. Appeal disallowed.
14. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-03022009-05.doc
Page 4 of 4