CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01069 dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Shama Parveen
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Facts
:
Ms. Shama Parveen of Bijnor (UP) moved three applications of 8.12.06, 29.12.06
and 18.1.07 before CPIO Shri I.B. Karan, Director (Delhi), Ministry of Home
Affairs, seeking information on a number of points as follows:
APPLICATION OF 8.12.06
“The information needed pertains to my above referenced PMO
order and complaint (Against atrocities committed by Delhi Police),
which is under consideration with the Ministry of Home Affairs, as
per details given below:-
A) As regards aforementioned PMO order dated 29.8.2006 and
complaint dated 21.8.2006 provide following information
Para wise:
i. Certified copy of Action Taken Report/ Enquiry Report.
ii. Certified copies of notings (Sheets) made by concerned
person who have dealt the aforementioned PMO order and
my complaint.
iii. Certified copy of statements/ material submitted by the
Charged Police Officials, conspirator & abettors involved in
said business of false implication.
iv. Daily progress report since the date these were received in
MHA and till the date information is provided.
v. Whether permission for filing complaints with international
agencies has been granted by Hon’ble Prime Minister/ Home
Secretary (Refer aforementioned complaints, which clearly
shows that officials of Delhi Police have committed atrocities
and that our Government and its agencies have persistently
failed to protect the Basic Fundamental Rights of an ordinary
non-influential family; since last 7 years). If permission has
not been granted reasons for the same may be spelt out.
vi. Whether MHA called the actual vigilance inquiry reports
conducted by (a) Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld. ACP/ Vigilance
and (b) Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, LD. Joint Commissioner of
1
Police/ Vigilance for examining them. If yes, kindly provide
copy of these enquiry reports.
vii. Whether enquiry/ investigation of the cases has been made
over to the NHRC/ CBI to investigate/ further investigate into
the 7 false cases in question, so as to unearth the truth. If
not, reasons for the same may be spelt out.
viii. What action has been initiated against the concerned police
officials and authorities of Delhi Police who adopted dilatory
tactics and exhibited dereliction of duties and committed
perjury, so as to shield their erring and guilty police officials?
If action has not been taken, reasons for the same may be
spelt out.
ix. Whether Case(s) have been registered against the erring
and guilty police officials, conspirators and others involved in
the offences is/ are registered and enquiry/ investigation of
these cases are made over to the NHRC/ CBI. If yes
provide full details. If no, reasons for the same may be spelt
out.
x. Whether any other FIRs are found registered against my
family members besides the 7 FIRs stated in my complaints.
If yes, provide details thereof.
xi. Provide full details as to what action has been taken to stop
further harassment of my family members (S/Shri Aftab
Ahmed, Zafaryab Ahmed, Dilshad Ahmed and Shahzad
Ahmed R/o H. No. 235, Julahan, Behind Jail, Bijnor) through
false implication.
If above referenced PMO order and complaint dated 21.8.2006
were dealt by different persons/ agencies of MHA in that case
kindly provide above cited information separately.
B. Provide full and complete information as to what action has
been taken regarding the following matters relating to my
aforementioned complaints. If action regarding these
matters has not been taken reasons and rationale for the
same may be spelt out.
i) What action has been taken against the erring and
guilty police officials who have adopted; cash for false
implication torture incarceration humiliation and
harassment like approach and thus has foisted 7 false
cases on my family members after I registered a
dowry case?
ii) Whether action should not be taken against the
officials and authorities of Delhi Police who have
failed to take pre-emptive action despite numerous
complaints and representations were made to them
2
well in advance and brought our apprehensions of
likelihood of false implication to their attention in
person vide 154-CP dated 11.7.2002 and on many
other occasions? (Refer Para 3 of my complaint).
iii) What action has been taken against the concerned
Police officials who are responsible for adopting
dilatory tactics and causing a delay of 3 years in
taking a decision on withdrawing two under trail cases
u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC as recommended by Shri Amarjeet
Singh, ACP/ Vigilance vide his enquiry report dated
24.3.2003? Because of this delay on the part of Delhi
Police we had been unnecessarily dragged before the
court and after a lapse of three years i.e. on
10.3.2006 Commissioner of Police, Delhi directed
DCPs North East and Crime and Railways to
withdraw the cases u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC and thus
petitioners were made to rush to Delhi from Bijnor to
face avoidable trial (Refer Para 4 of the
aforementioned complaint).
(iv) Why action should not be taken against concerned
police officials of Vigilance Branch for repeatedly
adopting dilatory tactics and thus failing to act on
NHRC repeated directions vide NHRC Notice No.
3341/30/2002-2003-WC and its subsequent
proceedings dated 14.6.2004 and 24.2.2005 and thus
defied and frustrated the objective of directions
passed by the NHRC? (Refer Para 5, Annexure P-1
and Annexure P-2 of my complaint).
(v) What action ahs been taken against the police
officials responsible for inflicting torture on my brother
while in police custody? (Report about said torture
was also called by NHRC this has however not been
filed by the Vigilance Branch deliberately so as to
protect their erring and guilty police officials. (Refer
Para 5 Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 of my
complaints.
(vi) What action has been taken against the Enquiry
Officer (Vigilance Branch) who did not complete
enquiry with in the stipulated time ( three weeks)
entrusted to him by The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi on 12.4.05? (Refer Para 5 of my complaint as
enquiry should have been completed din three weeks
as per Delhi Police’s Norms set for the discharge of
function vide (Section 4(1) (b) (iv), Manual-4 as well
as procedure followed in decision making process
(Section 4 (1) (b) (iii) Manual-3).
3
(vii) What action ahs been taken against concerned
officials of Vigilance Branch for misleading Shri
Gautam Kaul, IPS (“Retd.) Hon’ble Member, Public
Grievances Commission. Govt. of NCT Delhi
regarding moving applications u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC
before the courts to withdraw the false cases?
(Despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate that
in fact any such application was filed by that date
(23.3.2006). Refer Para 6 of my complaint.
(viii) What action has been taken against the officials of
Vigilance Branch for filing misleading and self
contradictory reports vide letter No. F. 24 (1)
W/03/2946/HA CVC/ Vig dated 28.1.2004 before the
Central Vigilance Commission and vide report No 24
(50)/Vig./03/10329/HANR/Vigilance dated 12.4.2006
before the National Commission for Women (Refer
Para 7 pf complaint, annexure P-4 and Annexure P-
5).
(ix) Out of aforementioned two reports which report is
authentic? (As these two self contradictory reports
have been submitted by Vigilance Branch, Delhi
Police before the CVC and NCW and were are keen
to know which report is realistic and reliable.
(x) Whether scientific methods viz Lie Detector test,
Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping have been used in
investigation/ enquiry of my complaint? (CP Delhi
and Joint CP (Vigilance) Were time and again
requested for using scientific methods to ascertain the
truths as complaints are related to corruption, misuse
of officials’ position and the violation of human rights
by the officials of Delhi Police).
(xi) Provide complete information, procedure, policies,
norms and grounds for using said Scientific Methods
in investigation/ enquiry of the offences in the day to
day functioning in case i) offences offended by
citizens and ii) when offenders are officials of Delhi
Police.
(xii) Whether telephone and mobile call records of police
officials associated with the said 7 false cases and
conspirators of the cases have been obtained?
If yes, what action has been initiated against the erring police
officials on the basis of cal records? (C. P. Delhi and Joint CP
(Vigilance) were provided all necessary inputs and also on
12.4.2005 and 27.10.2005 regarding the same and thus we are
keen to know as to what action ahs been taken.
4
C) Provide full and complete information as to what action has
been taken regarding the following matters relating to my
aforementioned complaints. If action regarding these
matters has not been taken reasons and rationale for same
may be spelt out:
I) Re: Para 8 (1) of my complaint: IFR No. 69/2002, u/s
324,336, 341 and 34 IPC dated 25.2.2002 P.S. Nand Nagri,
Dist. North East, Delhi:
a) What action has been taken against IO, Sanjay Kumar for
implicating my brothers at the instance and in collusion and
league with my husband and in-laws and deliberately filing
charge sheet by ignoring material documents shown and
submitted to him and sent to his superiors and for extracting
Rs. 5000/-?
b) Provide copy of Commissioner of Police, Delhi order dated
10.3.2006 directing DCP/North East to withdraw the
aforementioned case u/s 173 (8) Cr. P. C. for further
investigation and file appropriate report in the Hon’ble Court.
If said direction was communicated through order sheet
(notings) provide copy of notings.
c) Provide copies of application moved before the court u/s 173
(8) Cr. P. C. (As were still facing trail because application
has not been moved so far. That because of dilatory tactics
adopted by Delhi Police my family members have been
made to rush to Delhi and had to face trial unnecessarily).
d) Provide noting sheets relating to further investigation.
e) Provide investigation report and daily progress report of
further investigation conducted in pursuance to direction by
the CP Delhi on 10.3.2006.
f) What action has been taken against the concerned
investigator who deliberately filed self-serving application
before the Hon’ble Court so as to frustrate the objective of
direction passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi?
g) Whether call record of IO, SI Sanjay Kumar and conspirators
of the case has been obtained to ascertain in the truth. If
yes provide the copy of the same. (Necessary inputs were
shown and submitted to CP Delhi, Joint CP (Vigilance) and
Joint CP/ New Delhi Range).
II) Re: Para 8 (II) of my complaint: FIR No. 236/2002, u/s
452,506,341,307,392,395, 411, 120B, 34 IPC Arms Act
dated 26.6.2002 P. S. Seelampur, Dist, North East Delhi:
A) What action has been taken against the Police officials
(Local Police, DIU &Crime Branch) who harassed my family
5
members for three years by prolonging investigation of this
case for three years? (Because finally police has to file
untraced report as no case has been made out against my
family members).
B) What action ahs been taken against the complainant of the
case (conspirator) and witnesses (abettors)? Why these real
culprits could not be brought to the book and police left them
Scot-free by filing an untraced report?
C) Whether call record of the investigators of this case and
conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain in
the truth? If yes provide the copy of the same.
III) Re: Para 8 (III) of my complaint: FIR No. 151/2003/U/s
363/341 dated 28.2.2003 PS Seelampur, Dist North East:
a) What action has been taken against the conspirators and
abettors of this case? While it has come on record that this
false case and two other cases were also registered by them
to harass and humiliate my family members so as to
pressurize us to withdraw dowry case.
b) Whether call record of the investigator of this case and
conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain the
truth. If yes provide the copy of the same.
IV) Re: Para 8 (IV) of my complaint: FIR No. 712/2000, U/s 324,
34 IPC dated 10.8.2002 P. S. Uttam Nagar, Dist. West Delhi.
a) What action has been taken against IO HC Shri Raj Singh
Dhankutt for implicating my father and brothers in collusion
and league with concubine of my husband and in-laws and
deliberately filing charge sheet by ignoring material
documents shown and submitted to him and sent to his
superior officers through registered mail and extracting Rs.
6000/-?
b) Provide copy of document which his showing that thi8s FIR
was registered u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC in pursuance to the
direction passed by Hon’ble Court.
c) Why this case was not withdrawn u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC for
further investigation on the basis of Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld.
ACP/ Vigilance enquiry report (concluded in March 2003)
who found this case false and fabricated and recommended
for further investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC by Crime Branch,
Delhi?
d) Who was responsible for not taking appropriate action
towards withdrawing this false case as recommended vide
aforementioned enquiry report and thus made us to face
6
avoidable trails till 29.8.2003. (LD. Trail court acquitted)
e) Provide copy of documents (Alleged compromise) legitimacy
of which led to a decision not to take action against the
erring and guilty police officials.
V) Re: Para 8 (V) of my complaint: FIR No. 11/2003 u/s 376,
506 IPC, dated 5.1.2003 PS Kotwali, Dist North:
a) What action has been taken against the complainant,
conspirators and Police officials involved in implicating in this
false rape case?
b) What action has been taken against the erring police officials
who severely tortured my brother at the behest of our
opponent and made him to suffer incarceration in Tihar Jail
from 22.1.2003 to 29.9.2003 (251 days)? When it has come
on record that my brother blood group is O+ve while medical
report of alleged rape victim disclose that person have A+ve
blood group committed rape?
c) What action has been taken against IO, SI-Shri Ramesh
Chand Meena, Crime Branch who extracted Rs. 47,500/-
from my father?
d) What action ahs been taken by DCP/ Crime and Railways to
move application before the Hon’ble court u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC
for further investigation of the case and file appropriate
report in the court on the direction passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 10.3.2006? (as we are still
facing trail because application ahs not been moved so far.
That because of dilatory tactics adopted by Delhi Police my
family members have been made to rush to Delhi and had to
face trial unnecessarily).
e) Provide copy of Commissioner of Police, Delhi order dated
10.3.2006 directing DCP/ Crime and Railway to withdraw the
aforementioned case u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC for furthe4r
investigation and file appropriate report in the Hon’ble Court.
If said direction was communicated through order sheet
(notings) provide copy of notings.
f) Provide copies of application moved before the Hon’ble
Court u/s 173 (8) Cr. PC.
g) Provide investigation report and daily progress report of
further investigation conducted in pursuance to direction
passed by the C. P. Delhi on 10.3.2006.
h) Whether call record of IO, SI Shri Ramesh Chand Meena
and other police officials and conspirators of the case has
been obtained to ascertain the truth. If yes provide the copy
of same. (Necessary inputs were shown and submitted to
CP Delhi, Joint CP (Vigilance) and Joint CP/ Crime).
7
VI) Re: Para 8 (VI) of my complaint: FIR No. 52/2003 u/s
341,506, 34 IPC dated 28.2.2003 PS :Civil Lines Dist North:
a) What action ahs been taken against the conspirators and
abettors of this false case whose name has come on record
in police investigation itself as no evidence could be found to
support the allegations of complainant?
b) What action ahs been taken against the police officials
involved in lodging this false FIR?
c) Whether call record of the investigators of this case and
conspirators of the case has been obtained to ascertain the
truth? If yes provide the copy of the same.
VII) Re: Para 8 (VII) of my complaint; No Nil/2004 u/s 420/379
and 506 IPC dated 7.9.2004 PS: Uttam Nagar, Dist: West
Delhi;
a) What is status of the investigation of this case? Provide
enquiry report.
D) Seeking full and complete information regarding process,
procedures and policies of Ministry of Home Affairs,
government of India in the following matters.
i) Information/ procedure/ norms and grounds for granting
‘immediate’ interim relief’/ compensation on account of
injury/ loss which the victims or the members of the family
have suffered owing to the violation of human rights by
public servants.
ii) Whether Ministry is considering to grant ‘immediate interim
relief’/ compensation in view of the peculiar circumstances in
which Delhi Police placed the petitioner’s family by
implicating in seven false cases in defiance to order passed
by the NHRC in case file no. 37638/24/2001-2002 directed
the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for taking pre-emptive
action against the threat of false implication. Gist of the
plight and suffering undergone by my family is given in my
complaints. (Petitioner entire family suffered financially,
mentally social irreparable losses because of implication in 7
false and frivolous cases and had been humiliated in the
eyes of the public as they have been unnecessarily arrested
repeatedly i.e. in case FIR No. 712/2000/ 69/2002 and while
in police custody in case FIR No. 11/2003 was subjected to
3rd degree torture and had to suffer incarceration from
22.1.2003 to 29.9.2003 (215 days) and have been harassed
because in other cases Delhi Police grilled them frequently,
which resulted in a loss of their reputation apart from the
ignominy and damage to their health in addition to the
8
considerable expenditure incurred by them to defend
themselves from the repeated false accusations and
frequently rushing to Delhi from Bijnor. The victims of false
implication have been dragged before the courts under the
serious charges because of faulty/ shoddy investigation
reports filed by the investigators of Delhi Police in
connivance with the erring and guilty police officials and
plotter of the cases. Despite there was a clear
recommendation (since March 2003) by Ld. ACP/ Vigilance
for further investigation/ reinvestigation of all the cases u/s
173 (8) Cr. PC. However Commissioner of Police, Delhi
passed order of reinvestigation on 10.3.2006 after a lapse of
three years and thus made to suffer to face avoidable trails
in different courts).
iii) Information/ procedure/ norms and grounds on the basis of
which M/o Home Affairs assigned the investigation/ enquiry
of the complaints of corruption and human rights violations to
the CBI and utilize the services of any officer or investigation
agency of the Central Government or any State
Government.
iv) The rationale and the reasons for not transferring the
investigation of the cases to CBI for which numerous
requests have been made since beginning.
E) Information/ procedure for filing a complaint with
international agencies like “UNHRC” Amnesty International
etc. I request to either provide the required information or
transfer this application to concerned department/
organization, which can provide me with the required
information.
APPLICATION OF 29.12.06
“The information needed pertains to my following complaints under
consideration with Ministry of Home Affairs, as per details given
below:
i) PMO ID No. 24/03/2006-PMP-1/229045 dated 29.8.06
addressed to the Home Secretary, M.H.A.
ii) My grievance petition dated 21.8.06 addressed to Home
Secretary, MHA
a) Whether MHA has taken any action on my above
referenced complaints?
b) If yes, please provide copies of the entire file and
other related documents, records, memos, file
9
notings, log books, etc. that have been generated as
a result.
c) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on the
matter from the date of receiving complaint up to the
date of supplying the information. This should include
a summary of the movement of the file/matter along
with the dates, name and designation of the person /
officials handling my case and the details of which
officer did what on what date.
d) If no action has been taken, please provide the
reasons.”
APPLICATION OF 18.1.07
“A) The information needed pertains to below cited two vigilance
enquiries conducted on our complaints and furnishing
clinching material documents including mobile and phone
numbers of police officials and accused in dowry case
showing nexus between them. Although we are r/o Bijnor
(U.P) however, we extended utmost cooperation to the
Enquiry Officers and time and again rushed to Delhi so as to
reply/satisfy their queries and also shown and submitted
material documents to them and the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi.
a) Shri Amarjeet Singh, Ld. ACP/Vigilance conducted
enquiry in the year 2003 about implication in 5 false
cases and
b) Shri Anil Kumar Sinha Ld. Joint Commissioner of
Police/Vigilance conducted enquiry in the year 2005
about implication in 7 false cases.
i) As regards (a) and (b) please provide certified copies
of the entire files and other related documents,
records, memos, file notings, log books, statements of
the erring police officials and plotters of these cases.
Telephone and Mobile call records of erring police
officials and plotters of the said 7 cases etc. that have
been generated as a result of the aforementioned
enquiries.
ii) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on the
aforementioned enquiries from the date of complaint /
enquiry up to the date of supplying the information.
This should include a summary of the movement of
the files/matter along with the dates, name and
designation of the persons / officials dealt the
10
aforementioned enquiry files and the details of which
officer did what on what date.
iii) Please provide case wise information about the said 7
cases as to what action would be taken against the
erring and guilty police officials (and plotters of the
false cases) for extracting money from us, inflicting
torture, victimizing my family members through
implicating them in 7 false and frivolous cases and
thus caused financial, mental, social irreparable
losses and humiliation to my entire family? By when
that action would be taken?
iv) If no action would be taken against erring police
officials and plotters of the said 7 cases and or they
have been given clean chit in said enquiries, please
provide case wise and name wise reasons and
rationale of the Enquiry Officers and the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi for doing so viz.
leaving them scot-free?
v) On what basis investigation of 3 cases viz. 1) FIR No.
236 PS Seelampur, Distt. North East, 2) FIR No.
52/2003 PS Civil Lines, Distt. North and 3) FIR No.
11/2003 PS Kotwali, Distt. North was transferred to
the Crime Branch?
vi) Please provide entire records including file notings
that have been generated in transferring the
investigation of aforesaid 3 cases to the Crime
Branch.
vii) On what basis the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
passed order dt. 10.3.2006 viz directed DCPs/North
East and Crime and Railways to withdraw the under
trial two cases viz. FIR No. 69/2002 PS Nand Nagri,
Distt. North East and F.I.R. No. 11/2003 PS Kotwali,
Distt. North u/s 173(8)CrPC from the Court?
viii) Please provide entire records order including noting
sheets related to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
order dt. 10.3.2006.
ix) Reasons and rationale for not withdrawing the under
trial case FIR No. 712/2000 u/s 324, 34 IPC Dt.
10.8.2000 PS Uttam Nagar, Distt. West Delhi u/s
173(8) CrPC for further investigation as per findings of
vigilance enquiry report submitted by Shri Amarjeet
Singh Ld. ACP/Vigilance in March, 2003.
x) Please give the names and designations of the
officials who were supposed to take action on the
findings of the aforementioned vigilance enquiry
reports?
11
xi) What action would be taken against these officials for
not doing their work and thereby compelled to face
avoidable trails in different courts and thus causing
mental, social and financial harassment to us? By
when would that action be taken?
B) Please provide following information (I to vi) regarding the
complaints and representations listed in the table cited
below:
i) Whether Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police has taken any
action on the complaints/ representations mentioned
in the table cited below?
ii) IF yes, please provide information on each of the said
complaints/ presentations. Please provide copies of
the entire file and other related documents, records,
memos, file notings, log books, telephone and mobile
call records etc that have been generated as a result
of these complaints/ representations.
iii) Please provide me a Daily Progress Report on each
of the complaints/ representations form the date of
receiving complaint up to the date of supplying the
information. This should include a summary of the
movement of the file/ matter along with the dates,
name and designation of the person/ officials handling
(Dealt) these complaints and the details of which
officer did what on what date.
iv) If no action has been taken, please provide the
reasons.
v) If call records of telephone and mobile numbers
furnished along with were not taken, pleas provide the
reasons.
vi) If any of the above complaint/ representation was
forwarded to any other Unit/ Branch of Delhi Police,
please provide the reasons and rationale.
Date Particulars of complaints/ Representations (submitted Date of
by my father and brothers S/Shri Aftab Ahmed, Dilshad complaint/
Ahmed, Shahzad Ahmed and by me Smt. Shama representation
Parveen)
1. Complaint along with material documents shown and 25.4.2005
submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance
2. Complaint along with material documents shown and 25.5.2005
submitted to the Joint CP/ Vigilance
3. Complaint along with material documents furnished 8.6.2005
before the Joint CP/ Vigilance.
4. Complaint along with material documents furnished 16.6.2005
before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
12
5. Complaint along with material document furnished 17.6.2005
before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
6. Complaint along with material documents furnished 24.9.2005
before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
7. Complaint along with material documents furnished 27.10.2005
before the Joint CP/ Vigilance
8. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 9.4.2005
regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of
huge bribe, shown and submitted to the Joint CP/
Vigilance.
9. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 24.4.2003
regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of
huge bribe shown and submitted to the Joint CP/
Vigilance.
10. Complaint against Shri R. C. Mina, SI Crime Branch 12.5.2003
regarding shoddy/ faulty investigation and demand of
huge bribe shown and submitted to the Joint CP/
Vigilance.
11. E-mail to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi 22.12.2006 12. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 30.10.2006 13. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 5.9.2006 14. The Joint CP/ Vigilance 5.9.2006 15. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 27.12.2006 16. The DCP/ Vigilance 13.12.2006 17. Sp. CP/ Vigilance 27.12.2006 18. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 27.12.2006 19. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi. 30.10.2006 20. Request letter to the Joint CP/ Vigilance/ 3.4.2006 21. Central Vigilance Commission vide its order No. 003- 29.6.2006
DLH-010/28505 dated 29.6.2006 had sent our
complaint to the Joint CP/ Vigilance for appropriate
action and needful justice in the matter.
22. On 3.6.2003 a complaint along with a Medical 3.6.2003
Certificate of medical examination conducted while in
police custody clearly shown injuries suffered due to 3rd
degree torture inflicted on my brother Shri Dilshad
Ahmed while in police custody in false case No. FIR No.
11/2003 u/s 376,506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Dist North was
shown and submitted to the then Joint CP/ Vigilance.
It was specifically submitted vide said complaint to take
prints out of incoming and out going call log of mobile
no. 9811865516 so as to confirm nexus between the
police officials and plotter of the cases and to bring the
erring and guilty police officials and other to justice.
23. NHRC Notice No. 3341/30/2002-2003-WC 7.2.2003
13
C) In pursuance to Central Vigilance Commission’s direction
Addl. DCP/ Vigilance had filed a report vide letter No. F. 24
(1) W/03/2946/HA-CVC/Vig.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire files and
other related documents, records, memos, file
notings, log books, statements of the erring police
officials and plotters of these cases. Telephone and
Mobile call records of erring police officials and
plotters of the said 7 cases etc that have been
generated as a result of enquiry conducted for
furnishing aforementioned reply before the CVC.
ii) Please provide me a Daily Progress REpor5t on the
aforementioned enquires from the date of complaint/
enquiry up to the date of supplying the information.
This should include a summary of the movement of
the file/ matter along with the dates, name and
designation of the person/ officials dealt my case and
the details of which officer did what on what date.
D) On 30.11.2005 my brother Shri Shahzad Ahmed had sent a
complaint along with material documents to the Joint CP/
Vigilance requesting enquiry against erring and guilty police
officials named in the complaint. I came to know that instead
of enquiring into the complaint, this complaint was merely
forwarded to the DCP/ North West. When the complaint was
made against officials of Crime Branch, North East and
North.
i) Please provide reasons and rationale for forwarding
the said complaint to the DCP/ North West. How
DCP/ North West comes into picture?
ii) Please give the names and designations of the
officials who were supposed to take action on said
complaint and who have not done so? So as to
protect their erring and guiltily police officials and in
this way erring police officials they were given
opportunity to destroy the evidences furnished in the
complaint and hence subverted the justice.
iii) What action would be taken against these officials for
no doing their work and exhibiting aphetic approach
towards the citizen’s complaints? By when would that
action be taken?
E) Re: Case No. PGC/2005.174/33 DP: Non compliance of
order/ direction passed by Shri Gautam Kaul, IPS (Retd)
14
Hon’ble Member, Public Grievances Commission vide
PGC’s proceedings dated 3.2.2006 and 23.3.2006.
Shri B. M. Sharma, Deputy Secretary, PGC vide order/ direction
letter F. No. PGC/ 2006/174/200 11185 dated 20.9.2006 called
comments from Joints Commissioner of Police/ Vigilance on the
subject matter.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire file and
other related documents/ records, memos, file
notings, log books that have been generated as a
result of aforementioned order of the PGC.
ii) If no reply has been filed, please provide the reasons.
F) Regarding President’s Secretariat UD No. E-6/US
(P)/09/2006 dated 15.9.2006 and Deputy Secretary (Home)
Letter No. F. 14/77/2006/HP-II/7246 dated 20.10.2006
(complaint was against officials and authorities of Delhi
Police viz Vigilance Branch, Crime Branch, Distt North East,
Distt West and Distt North.
i) Please provide certified copies of the entire files and
other related documents, records, memos, file
notings, log books etc that have been generated as a
result of enquiry conducted by Vigilance Branch in
pursuance to above referenced endorsements.
ii) If Vigilance Branch has not conducted enquiry, please
provide reasons and rationale of the same.
iii) Please provide reasons and rationale of O/o CP Delhi
and Vigilance Branch for forwarding the complaint to
DCP/ North East (only) when complaint was against
officials and authorities of Vigilance Branch, Crime
Branch, Distt North east, Distt West and Distt North.”
These applications were all passed on to the Office of Dy. Commissioner
of Police (Vigilance) Delhi, which were respectively received on 15.12.06,
19.1.07 and 22.1.07. The response Ms Parveen received to her request of
8.12.06 from Ms. Shalini Singh, PIO and DCP (Vigilance) was simply that the
matter was under examination. However, after she has moved a first appeal on
17.2.07, a detailed response was received from Shri M.R. Gothwal, PIO & DCP
(Vig) as follows:
“The said complaints were examined in this office and a reply in
detail was sent to the Under Secretary to the GOI, MHA, New Delhi15
vide No. 10131/HA-MHA/Vig. Dated 20.3.2007. Copy of the same
is enclosed herewith for your information.”
Upon this Ms Parveen moved another first appeal on 14.4.07 before Shri
R.P. Upadhyaya Addl. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) on the grounds that
“the information provided is vague and not in line with the information sought
point wise/ Para wise I am therefore constrained to appeal to you for the required
information” which, however, was dismissed by Appellate Authority Shri R.P.
Upadhyaya on 8.5.07 in the following words:
“As per the records, in his order dated 22.3.2007, PIO/ Vigilance
has sent to you a copy of a detailed reply sent by him to Under
Secretary to the GOI, MHA, New Delhi vide no. 10131/HA-MHA/Vig
dated 20.3.2007. This is a very comprehensive reply and has all
the information asked for by you in your appl8ication from time to
time. There has been no effort to withhold any information from
you. All the information concerning the Vigilance Branch has been
provided. There is no ground in the appeal to interfere with the
orders of PIO/ Vigilance.”
On not receiving a response on the application of 29.12.06 Ms. Shama
Parveen moved a first appeal of 17.2.07 before Addl. Commissioner of Police
(Vigilance) who in his order of 1.6.07 stated as follows:
“A copy of the detailed reply was also sent to you by PIO/Vig. Vide
No. 10265/RTI/Vig dated 22.3.07. But you have stated in your
appeal that you have not received any response from PIO/Vig. A
copy of the report is again being sent to you. I hope this will answer
all your queries.”
The Appellate Authority has, therefore, considered the PIO’s response to
the application of 8.12.06 as the full response.
Finally, in her request of 18.1.07 Ms. Shama Parveen received a more
detailed response from Ms. Shalini Singh PIO (Vig.) seeking to answer all
questions as follows:
“A The copy of Vigilance enquiry conducted by Shri Amarjit
Singh, ACP/Vig. has already been sent to you vide this office
No. 27773/RTI/Vig. Dated 15.9.2006. However, a copy of
the same and a copy of the details of the scrutiny of16
Vigilance enquiry report conducted by the then Jt.
CP/Vigilance Shri A. K. Sinha is enclosed. On the basis of
Vigilance Enquiry report the investigation of case FIR No.
236 PS Seelampur, East Distt. FIR No. 52/03 PS Civil Lines,
North Distt. & FIR No. 11/33 PS Kotwali, North Distt. were
transferred to Crime Branch (copy of letter enclosed). On
recommendation of PGC after approval of CP, Delhi, DCPs
North East Distt. & Crime & Railways filed applications u/s
173(3) Cr.P.C. in the concerned courts in case FIR No.
69/02 P.S. Nand Nagri and 11/03 P.S. Kotwali respectively.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be furnished to you as
per Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have had
there depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during
the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens who
cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to be
protected, as was held by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr. Sharma vs.
Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated
23.11.2006
B. Remarks may be seen on complaint / representation filed by
you. Shahzad Ahmed & Aftab Ahmed:-
Sr. Particulars of Date of Remarks.
No. Complaint complaint
/representation
submitted by Sh.
Aftab Ahmed,
Shahzad Ahmed,
Shama Parveen
1 Complaint along with 25.4.05 Complaint sent to
material document DCP/West vide No.
shown and submitted to 14985/HA-SR dt. 7.5.05
Jt. CP/Vig.
2 Complaint along with 25.5.05 Not received in this office.
material document
shown and submitted to
Jt. CP/Vig.
3 Complaint along with 8.6.05 Complaint sent to DCP
material document West Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20166/HA-SR dt. 20.6.05.
CP/Vig.
4 Complaint along with 16.6.05 Sent to DCP/North-East
material document Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20711/HA/NDR/Vig. Dt.
CP/Vig. 24.6.05 for n.a.
17
5. Complaint along with 17.6.05 Sent to DCP/North-East
material document Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 20711/HA/NDR/Vig. Dt.
CP/Vig. 24.6.05 for n.a.
6 Complaint along with 24.9.05 Not received in this office.
material document
furnished before Jt.
CP/Vig.
7 Complaint along with 27.10.05 Complaint sent to
material document DCP/West Distt. vide No.
furnished before Jt. 35385 HR-SR dt. 10.11.05
CP/Vig.
8 Complaint against Sh. 9.4.05 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
9 Complaint against Sh. 24.3.03 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
10 Complaint against Sh. 12.5.03 Not received in this office.
R.C. Meena SI Crime
Branch regarding
shoddy/faulty
investigation and
demand of huge bribe,
shown and submitted to
Jt. CrP/Vig.
11 E-mail to Commissioner 22.12.06 Complaint had become the
of Police, Delhi part of Vigilance Enquiry
12 The Commissioner of 30.10.06 This complaint/application
Police, Delhi. was not received from O/O
CP Delhi the same has
been received from
Addl.CP/HQs and reply has
been sent to you vide No.
32531/RTI/Vig. Dt. 8.11.06
13 The Commissioner of 5.9.06 Complaint had become the
18
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
14 The Jt. CP/Vig. 5.9.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
15 The Commissioner of 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
16 DCP/Vig. 13.12.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
17 Spl.CP/Vig. 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
part of Vigilance Enquiry
18 The Commissioner of 27.12.06 Complaint had become the
Police, Delhi. part of Vigilance Enquiry
19 The Commissioner of 30.10.06 This complaint/application
Police, Delhi. was not received from O/O
CP Delhi the same has
been received from
Addl.CP/HQs and reply has
been sent to you vide No.
32531/RTI/Vig. Dt. 8.11.06
20 Request to 3.4.06 Complaint had become the
Jt.CP/Vigilance part of Vigilance Enquiry
21 Central Vigilance 29.6.06 Reply sent to you vide this
Commission vide its Office No. 27773/RTI Vig.
order No. 003-DLH- Dt. 15.9.06
010/28505 dt. 29.6.06
had sent their complaint
to the Jt.CP/Vig.
Appropriate action and
needful / justice in the
matter.
22 On 3.6.03 a complaint 3.6.03 Not received in this office.
along with a medical
certificate of medical
examination conducted
in Police Custody clearly
showing injuries suffered
due to third degree
torture inflicted on your
brother Sh. Dilshad
Ahmed while in police
custody in false case
number FIR No. 11/03
u/s 376, 506 IPC PS
Kotwali, North Distt. was
shown and submitted to
the then Jt.
CP/Vigilance.
19
It was specifically
submitted vide said
complaint to take prints
out of incoming and
outgoing calls log of
mobile No. 9811865516
so as to confirm nexus
between the police
officials and plotter of the
cases and to bring the
erring and guilty police
officials and other to
justice.
23 NHRC notice No. 7.2.03 The reply sent to you vide
3341/30/2002-2003-WC. this office letter No.
13082/RTI/Vig. Dated
11.5.06 under
RTI/Vigilance.
C. Photo copy of letter No. F.24(1)W/03/2946/ HA/CVC-Vig.
Dated 28.1.2004 is enclosed herewith.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be provided as per Sec.
8(1)(e) & (g) of RTI Act as it contains references to peoples,
who gave information or have had their depositions recorded
in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry.
The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law
enforcement authorities needs to be protected as was held
in case of Vinod Kumar vs. Delhi Police by CIC in case File
No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006.
D. Your brother’s complaint dated 20.11.2005 was sent to
DCP/North West Distt. as the Crime Branch office was at
that time located at in the building of PS Prashant Vihar
which was in the North West Distt. The same was then sent
by DCP North West Distt. to DCP/C&R vide his office letter
No. 1381-Complt9NWD) dated 11.2.2006 for further
necessary action.
E. As per the recommendation of PGC in Para 9 (copy
enclosed), after approval of CP/Delhi the applications had
been filed u/s 173(8) CrPC North East Distt. and C&R in the
concerned court. Already a reply was sent in this regard
(copy enclosed) to PGC.
20
F. Reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter No.
34772/RTI/Vig. Dated 21.11.2006 under RTI Act. Copy of
same is enclosed.
Rest of the information as asked for cannot be furnished to you as
per Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act 2005, as these persons have had
their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence during
the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens who
cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to be
protected, as was held by CIC in case of Vinod Kr. Sharma vs.
Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated
23.11.2006.”
However, not satisfied Ms. Shama Parveen moved her first appeal on
14.3.07 on the following grounds:
“the information provided is vague, incomplete and not in line with
the information sought point wise / Para wise, I am therefore
constrained to appeal to you for the required information.”
With regard to the withholding of information she specifically pleaded as follows:
“Since information solicited concerns human rights and corruption,
therefore, information sought cannot be kept confidential, as was
held by CIC in case of Shri Dharmendra Sharma vs. Delhi Police in
case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00535.
Thus the information sought by the appellant, even if attracting
exemption of Sec. 8(1)(e) or Sec. 8(1)(g) will be governed by the
provision of sec. 8(2), which allows disclosure even protected
information. The Ld. PIO has not reflected on the human rights and
corruption aspects which the applicant has highlighted in RTI
request itself.
I, therefore, appeal to kindly provide certified copies of entire
information requested vide point No. (i) & (ii).”
In this appeal appellant has examined in detail the answers received.
However, in his order of 24.4.07 first appellate authority dismissed the appeal in
the following words:
“Perusal of record shows that you have been provided a copy of
Vigilance enquiry report of the enquiry conducted by Shri Amarjit
Singh, ACP/Vig. As well as a copy of details of scrutiny of Vigilance
enquiry report conducted by the then Jt. CP/Vig. Action taken on21
the Vigilance enquiry report has also been intimated to you. Your
contention that the information sought by you in subsequent paras
of your application will be governed by section 8(2) of the RTI Act is
untenable. Section 8(2) says “a public authority may allow access
to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to
the protected interests.” This section does not relate to human
rights or corruption, as claimed by you. Denial of information
sought by you by PIO/Vig. is justified as this could disclose the
identities of persons who cooperated with the law enforcing
agencies and may jeopardize their safety.
Your complaints of different dates mentioned in your application
were sent to different PIOs as mentioned in the letter sent to you by
PIO/Vigilance. The record of the office of Jt. CP/Vig. Has also been
got checked and your complaints mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9,
10 and 22 have not been received in that office.
After perusal of all the documents, I am of the opinion that PIO/Vig.
has provided you all the information that could be provided under
the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.”
The appeal was heard on 26.12.2008 through video conferencing. The
following are present:
Appellant (AT NIC STUDIO, BIJNOR, U.P.)
Ms. Shama Parveen
Sh. Aftab Ahmad (Father of appellant)
Sh. Shahzad Ahmad (Brother of appellant)
Respondents (AT CIC STUDIO, NEW DELHI)
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, DCP (Vig)
Sh. Krishan Pal HC (Ministerial)Shri Shahzad Ahmad, authorized representative of appellant Ms. Shama
Parveen submitted that the questions asked were specific and are not all
answered in the enquiry report. Shri Rajesh Kumar, present DCP(V) on the other
hand referred to the response given on 22.2.07 in which each of the complaint
moved by appellant have infact been addressed and submitted that the enquiry
report covers the points at issue.
DECISION NOTICE
22
Having examined the records and heard the parties, we find that what
has been provided is a certified copy of the action taken report / enquiry report
which accounts for only question A-1 of the application of 8.12.06. Other
questions flowing from the same have not been addressed pointwise in any of
the three applications. The RTI Act is specific in sec. 7 sub sec. (9) in requiring
that “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought
unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or
would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question”. It
was, therefore, incumbent upon the CPIO to answer each of the questions raised
unless he sought to provide the information in a form other than what had been
sought but for this good reason had to be given.
We also find from the reply of 22.2.07 that many of the questions asked
have been referred to different Dy. Commissioners of Police. Whereas this
indeed is the required practice u/s 6 sub sec. (3) of the RTI Act read with sec. 5
sub sec. (4), if the application has been so transferred by the CPIO of the same
department it becomes the responsibility of that CPIO to ensure also that replies
are given, which has not happened in this case. Besides, in refusing part of the
information sought CPIO has stated that this “cannot be furnished to you as per
Sec. 8(1)(e)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have had there depositions
recorded in good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry. cited
exemption.” In this case the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)
No.3114/2007 – Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner &
Ors is of relevance, since it deals with the application of sec. 8 sub-section (1) as
follows:
12. “The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and
expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society,
information and access to information holds the key to resources,
benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any
other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By
one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official
barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept
aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few
exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in23
the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by
the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment
seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the
government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the
provisions contained therein.
13. Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and
exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 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 self. 1 ”
Therefore, it is not enough to simply cite a clause to seek exemption.
Reasons for so doing will have to be explained. Besides, it is open to the CPIO to
exercise severability as described in Sec 10 sub-section (1) of the Act requiring
that “access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain
any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can
reasonably be severed from any part that contains such information” The CPIO
may therefore proceed in the manner prescribed in Sec 10 sub-section (2)
For the above reasons, the orders in appeal in all three cases are set
aside. The DCP (Vig) Shri Rajesh Kumar will now provide a pointwise answer in
the case of all three applications. If the answers are to be found in the Vigilance
Enquiry Report, reference may be made to the specific part of that report where
the answers are to be found in answering the questions raised by appellant in her
three applications. This he will do within one month of the date of issue of
this Decision Notice. More time is being given to CPIO for this purpose so as
to ensure that he is able to collect the information required from DCPs to whom
the applications had been transferred for responding and to exercise his authority
u/s 10 sub-section (2).
We also find that in case of the application of 8.12.06 which was received in
the office of D.C.P. on 15.12.06, a response has only gone on 22.1.07 when in
fact it had become due by 15.1.07. The request of 29.12.06 had not been
1
Emphasis ours
24
responded to by the CPIO. Whereas we are willing to accept that because there
was an impression in the Department that a reply to the application of 29.12.06
stood given by the response to the application of 8.12.06, we cannot accept the
excuse of DCP Shri Rajesh Kumar made in the hearing that the delay occurred
because the Vigilance Office is scattered. It is the business of every public
authority to ensure that its systems are made commensurate with the law, not
vice versa. For this reason, Ms. Shalini Singh then PIO and DCP (Vig.) will show
cause why she should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 250/- a day from
15.1.07 to 22.1.07 amounting to Rs. 1750/-. She may do this in writing by
20.1.2009 or by personal appearance before us on 20.2.2009 at 4.00 p.m.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
26.12.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
26.12.2008
25