CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00809 dated 18-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Singhvi
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) New Delhi
FACTS
By an application of 18-7-2006 Shri Mahaveer Singhvi of Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi applied to the DCP, New Delhi District seeking the
following information:
“Vide letter dated 422/DIC-NDD dated 11.7.2006 of your office,
it has been stated that an inquiry was conducted which revealed
that the allegations were not substantiated and no cognizable
offence was made out, therefore, FIR was not lodged and the
complaint was filed. In respect of the aforesaid, you are
requested to provide me the following information: –
1. Name and rank of the officer who conducted the inquiry on
my complaint dated 16.2.2006.
2. Certified copy of the inquiry report submitted by the said
inquiry officer on my complaint dated 16.2.2006.
3. Whether the inquiry report as submitted by the said inquiry
officer was accepted by you and if so the reasons thereof or
you may provide a certified copy of the file notes/ documents
containing the reasons for the said inquiry report being
accepted by you.
4. Inspection of the file pertaining to the aforesaid complaint
dated 16.2.2006.
5. A certified copy of the aforesaid complaint dated 16.2.2006
received by you.”
To this he received a response from Shri Vijay Kumar, ACP on
10.8.2006 as follows: –
“1. An enquiry was got conducted by SI Ram Babu of P. S.
Parliament Street, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
2&3. The certified copy of enquiry report as well as file note/
document cannot be provided to you being restricted
under section 8 (1) (e) and (h) of Right to Information Act,
2005. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that the
enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer EO) was
accepted by Addl. DCP/NDD and filed due to nothing was
found cognizable offence in the enquiry report.
4. You can inspect the file (under the provision of Act)
pertinent to aforesaid complaint by paying appropriate fee1
as per rule under Right to Information Act, 2005 in the
presence of ACP/ Parliament Street/ NDD on any working
day from 10 AM to 5 PM.
5. Certified copy of your complaint dated 16.2.06 is
enclosed herewith as desired.’
Not satisfied Shri Mahaveer Singhvi through his letter of 27.8.2006
appealed to the Appellate Authority, JCP Shri Alok Kumar Verma, New Delhi
Range basing his appeal on the following contention: –
“The information sought by me vide my application dated
18.7.2006 vide Para 2 and 3 are neither restricted under section
8 (1) (e) nor under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. it is
submitted that the alleged inquiry report has been prepared by
the enquiry officer and then submitted to his departmental
superiors in discharge of his public duties and official work.
There is no fiduciary relationship involved in the same as
provided under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly,
as per the information provided to me itself, the alleged inquiry
has been completed on my complaint and the inquiry report has
been filed as no cognizable offence according to the police
officer who dealt with the complaint has been made out. This
rules out the application of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act,
2005.”
JCP Shri Alok Kumar Verma, in his order of 28.9.2006 however, found
as follows:-
“The appellant was heard in person on 22.9.2006. All the
relevant records have been examined. I, agree with the
contentions of the appellant and found that sections 8 (1) (e) &
(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 are not applicable to appellant’s case.
However, the documents asked for have rightly been denied as
the same are exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1)
(g). The appellant was given an opportunity to inspect the file,
but he did not avail the opportunity. The appellant has the
liberty to inspect the relevant portion of the concerned file at the
office of PIO/ NDD on any working day. The appeal is
accordingly disposed off.(sic)”
Shri Mahaveer Singhvi initially through a letter of 7.10.2006, sought
review of this order on the ground that JCP was not authorised to find fresh
grounds for refusal other than those taken by the PIO. Upon this Shri Alok
Kumar Verma rightly took the view that the appellate authority under the RTI
Act had no authority to review a decision. Thereupon Shri Mahaveer Singhvi
moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-
2
“(a) Set aside/ quash Order No. 3723/ Appeal/ RIA/C-NDR,
dated 28.9.2007 and Order No. 4328/Appeal/ RTIA/C-
NDR dated 26.10.2006 of Shri Alok Kumar Verma,
Joint Commissioner of Police and Appellate
Authority, Delhi Police, Police HQ, I. P. Estate, New
Delhi.
(b) Direct the Respondents to provide to the appellant
the certified copy of the inquiry report sought by the
appellant vide point 2 of his application dated
18.7.2006 under the RTI Act, 2005 and certified copy
of the file/ notes/ documents containing the reasons
for the said inquiry report being accepted by the
DCP/ NDD as requested vide point 3 of the his
aforesaid application.
(c) Levy appropriate penalty and direct disciplinary
action to be taken against the Respondents No. 1 and
2 for illegally denying the information to the applicant.
(d) Direct the respondents to pay to the appellant heavy
cost and compensation for causing undue
harassment.
The appeal was heard on 9-3-2009. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Mahaveer Singhvi.
Respondents
Shri V. S. Joon, ACP/ HQ.
Shri Vijay Singh, SHO, Parliament Street.
Smt. Usha Chopra, W/SI.
Respondent Shri V. S. Joon, ACP, HQ submitted that appellant Shri
Mahaveer Singhvi has been given the opportunity to inspect the complete file
which he has not taken. Such an inspection would have covered inspecting
the inquiry report also which is placed on the file.
DECISION NOTICE
We cannot accept simply the citing of a particular sub-section of
section 8 (1) as sufficient ground for providing exemption from disclosure
under the RTI Act, 2005. As the Delhi High Court has held in WP 3114/
2007- Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors, the right
3
to information is the law where the exemption is only the exception as
follows:-
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. Under Section 8,exemption from
releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of
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 materialBesides the above, Appellate Authority Shri Alok Kumar Verma in his,
otherwise reasoned order has contradicted himself, on the one hand stating
that “documents asked for, have rightly been denied as the same are
exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (g)” but at the same time
directing that the “appellant has the liberty to inspect the relevant portion of
the concerned file at the office of PIO/ NDD”. Under section 7 (9) of the RTI
Act information is expected to be provided “in the form in which it is sought”.
The reasons for digressing from this principle under certain circumstances are
also laid down in the same clause of the Act.
Besides the above, we cannot see why as a general principle the Delhi
Police does not adopt the practice of conveying to a complainant the result of
any enquiry conducted by them on his / her complaint unless there are
specific reasons warranting exemption drawing directly from the exemptions
granted under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. This will surely help buttress public
confidence in the police apart from making information readily accessible to
the citizens.
We hereby direct that the CPIO, DCP, New Delhi District will supply a
certified copy of the final inquiry report submitted by SI Shri Ram Babu of
Police Station, Parliament Street, New Delhi together with the reasons for
accepting/ rejecting the same by the appropriate authority in the form of any
file note/document in which recorded to appellant Shri Mahaveer Singhvi
4
within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal
is thus allowed. But because the decisions have been taken within the time
limits mandated by the Act, and within their understanding of the law as the
respondents have been used to, there will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
9-3-2009
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
9-3-2009
5