Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal (present in person along
with Shri Prashant Bhushan and Shri Pranav
Sachdeva, Advocates)
Respondents :
1. O/o. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi (through Shri L.N. Rao, Additional DCP & PIO)
2. Central Forensic Science laboratory, Chandigarh (through Dr. S.K. Shukla,
Director & CPIO)
Date of Hearing : 01/11/2011
COMMON ORDER
1. The set of aforementioned three appeals came up for hearing before the
Commission and it is expedient to dispose of the said connected matters
through this Common Order.
2. The three appeals arise out of common set of facts wherein the subject-
matter relates to the controversy regarding the doctoring of some CDs
1
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
allegedly having conversation between Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior
Advocate and Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, Samajwadi party Chief.
3. The Appellant had filed three different RTI Applications dated 06/05/2011,
16/05/2011 and 30/05/2011 in the aforementioned three appeals, based on
the foresaid subject-matter and had raised various queries in each of these
RTI Applications. The common response received by the Appellant from
both the CPIO as well as the FAA in all the said three matters was that the
information sought could not be provided under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI
Act as doing so would hamper the process of investigation. It is pertinent to
mention that Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate had lodged an FIR
No.47/2011 with the Respondent with reference to the case of allegedly
doctored CDs and the matter was being investigated by Shri L.N. Rao, the
I.O. who is appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1.
4. The Commission has been apprised of the Final Report submitted by the said
I.O. in the case of FIR No.47/2011 before the Court of Shri Vinod Yadav,
CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the said report has also been placed on
record before the Commission. Therefore, it is apparently clear that the
investigation in the case of FIR No.47/2011 is closed and the Final Report
required to be prepared under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been
submitted to the learned Court. As a result, the Commission is of the view
that the Respondents are prohibited from outrightly invoking the exemption
2
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
clause under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act while denying information as
sought by the Appellant through his 3 (three) RTI Applications.
5. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Appellant has also submitted
that when similar information was sought from the Prime Minister’s Office
(“PMO”) by the said Appellant through some other RTI Application, then no
such exemption clause was invoked by the PMO and the information was in
fact provided to the Appellant under the RTI Act. Shri L.N. Rao has not
challenged the submission forwarded by Shri Bhushan but at the same time,
has preferred to justify the CPIO’s Order on grounds of Section 8 (1) (h) of
the RTI Act. However, Shri Rao has also submitted that since the
investigation is closed now, therefore the Respondent No.1 will have no
hesitation in providing para-wise reply to the various queries raised by the
Appellant in each of his said RTI Applications.
6. In light of the said development, the Commission hereby remits the matter
back to the concerned CPIO of the respective Respondents and directs each
of the respective CPIOs to furnish complete para-wise reply to each of the
queries raised in the abovementioned three RTI Applications to the
Appellant within 20 days of receipt of this Order.
7. The Commission further directs the Respondent No.1 to provide the
Appellant with a copy of the forensic report regarding doctored CD prepared
in the foresaid criminal case by CFSL, New Delhi, and a copy of the report
3
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN), Department
of Information Technology, free of cost, within 20 days of receipt of this
Order. This is so because Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act can no longer be
used as an exemption from providing such forensic report given the facts of
the present case. The Respondent No.2 is also hereby directed to provide the
Appellant with a copy of the forensic report regarding doctored CDs
prepared in the same criminal case by Respondent No.2, free of cost, within
20 days of receipt of this Order.
8. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Fourteenth Day of November, 2011
Authenticated True Copy
(DC Singh)
Deputy Registrar
Name & Address of Parties:
Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006
The CPIO/PIO,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
4
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001244
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001284
Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001430
Directorate of Forensic Science Services,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
CFIs Complex, Sector 36A, Chandigarh – 160 036
The First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Directorate of Forensic Science Services,
9th Block, 8th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110 003
The CPIO/PIO,
Delhi Police, O/o the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Special Cell, MSO Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002
The Appellate Authority,
Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Special Cell, 6th Floor, MSO Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi – 110 002
5