CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000371 dated 26.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 10.6.2010
Facts
:
By two applications of 27.12.08 Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh of Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon has applied to the CPIO, CBI seeking the following information:
“1. Details of action taken on the complaint, such as file notings,
record of meetings and correspondence with other
departments may be provided. No reply has been received
to the complaint after more than two months. Reasons for
the delay/ inaction may be provided. The names of the
officers in the CBI who have dealt with the application may
be provided, together with dates, remarks and action taken
by each of them.
2. The information may be provided within 48 hour under
section 7 (1) of the Act, since its concerns the liberty of the
applicant.”
The information sought in both applications is identical but refers to two
different publications i.e. (i) KAOBOYS OF R&AW: DOWN MEMORY LANE –
written by B. Raman and (ii) INSIDE RAW – THE STORY OF INDIA’S SECRET
SERVICE – written by Ashoka Raina. In his response of 15.1.09, CPIO Shri
Sanjay Kumar Singh, SP, CBI, ACU-IX New Delhi informed the General
pointwise, as follows:
S. No. Serial no. in Reply of CBI
application
1. Point no. 1 Action on the said complaint is being
taken according to the Chapter 8 of
CBI Crime Manual. Complaint has
not yet been disposed of.
2. Point no. 2 Out come of the complaint will be
informed after its final disposal.
Complaint is being dealt with
1
according to instructions provided in
CBI Crime Manual. There is no delay
in processing of complaint.
3. Point no. 3 The application has been dealt with
by the undersigned and Shri Giriraj
Sharma, SI of this Branch.
In his appeal of 29.1.09 before Shri M. M. Oberoi, DIG, CBI Maj. Gen.
Singh has pleaded as below:
“The reply given by the CPIO to question No. 1 and 2 is incomplete
and amounts to denial of information. The only information
provided is that the complaint is being dealt with according to
instructions provided in CBI Crime Manual. No information has
been given regarding the specific action taken and the reasons for
delay. The questions asked were specific and need specific
answers, which have not been provide.”
Upon this, DIG, CBI, ACU-IX New Delhi, in a more detailed order of
29.1.09 has come to the following conclusion:
(i) (Both the complaints of the appellants are being
verified as per laid down procedure. The perusal of records does not
indicate any undue delay. The complainant will be informed about the
outcome of his complaint after its disposal. These complaints may have
the potential for further legal actions. As such, till their disposals
otherwise, any information w.r.t. the processing of complaints will have
bearing on the fall out of such legal actions, if any. As such the
information about processing of complaints will be covered u/s 8 (i) (h) of
RTI Act, 2005, as they may have potential of legal actions in future.
Therefore, the request for providing such record related to the complaints
under process cannot be considered at this stage.
(ii) The complainant will be informed about the
outcome of complaints after its disposal.
(iii) There is no averment made by the appellant to
justify the applicability of section 7 (1) of RTI Act, 2005. The outcome of
the complaints is not related to the liberty of the appellant.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in second appeal is as below:
“The CBI may be directed to provide the information requested
regarding the action on my complaint regarding the disclosure
in the book titled The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane,
written by B. Raman, and the book titled Inside RAW- The
story of India’s Secret Service, written by Ashoka Raina as2
requested in my application. The information may be provided
within 48 hours under section 7 (1) of the Act since its
concerns the liberty of the applicant.
Respondent 1 and 2 should be asked to explain the reasons
for not providing the information with 48 hours as requested.”
In response to our appeal notice, we have received a letter from CPIO
Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, SCP, CBI, submitting as below:
“(a) With regard to this para it is submitted that the details of
complaint such as file notings, record of meeting and
correspondence with other department cannot be provided
at this stage as complaint is under process.
(b) With regard to this para it is submitted that on receipt of a
complaint, it is treated as per laid down procedure in CBI. In this case
also the procedure is being followed.
(c) With regard to this para it is submitted that reply of appellate
authority does not refer to the Charge Sheet against Maj. Gen. (Retd.) V.
K. Singh but it refers to the potential legal action on the allegations made
in the complaint. Disclosure of records pertaining to the complaint, before
its final outcome, may impede such potential legal action on the complaint
in future.
(d) With regard to this para it is submitted that the reply of CBI
does not violate human rights of Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh as the said
complaint is not related to the case against Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh.
(e) With regard to this para it is submitted that the information
sought by applicant cannot be disclosed at this stage as it can impede the
process of Prosecution of offenders, if any and potential legal action, if
any, which may be initiated on the basis of the processing of this
complaint.”
The appeal was heard on 10.6.10. The following are present:
CPIO Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh submitted that the complaints of Maj. Gen.
are still under verification and these have nothing to do with the case of his
prosecution. The relevant file was also inspected by us.
3
Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh submitted a copy of the decision of this Commission
dated 10.10.08 in the case of Maj. Gen. Singh vs. CBI Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2008/01164 in the last Para of which we have decided as follows:
“However, since the response of the CBI has made it clear that no
complaint has been filed with them thus far with regard to the book
in question violating a law upon which they could have taken action,
it is open to appellant Maj. Gen. V. K. Singh to move such a
complaint before the appropriate authority in CBI seeking such
further action, as is warranted by the law.
The General submitted that he has made this application in accordance
with this Commission’s Decision, but has not yet received a reply.
DECISION NOTICE
Having inspected the record, we find that the bulk of this, both in terms of
notings and correspondence, deals with communications received from R&AW,
an Organization listed at Sr. No. 2 of the Second Schedule and, therefore,
governed by Sec. 24(1), in that not only does nothing contained in the Act apply
to this Organization but also includes any information furnished by R&AW to
Government. Only the first two pages of the noting are disclosable information
which concerns the decision of CBI to refer the matter to R&AW. Under the
circumstances, the information sought is not disclosable under the RTI Act. For
this reason the appeal will not stand.
Nevertheless, we must point out that the decision of the Appellate
Authority is flawed because since the information sought in the present case, has
by the CPIO’s own admission, nothing to do with the prosecution pending against
appellant Shri V. K. Singh, it cannot be argued that the exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of
the RTI Act is sought because information that may be obtained during the
course of verification could prove such an impediment, when there is no
disclosure or indeed determination of what this impediment might be. Besides,
CPIO’s repeated plea in response to our appeal notice that the matter is under
4
process does not exempt him from disclosing to the complainant himself what
such a process is and what procedure is being followed. This may be noted by
the CPIO when disposing of similar cases not concerning a Second Schedule
Department in the future.
On the plea of appellant that the matter should have been disposed of
within 48 hours under the proviso to Sec. 7(1) of the RTI Act, we might only say
that since CBI itself is the prosecuting agency in the case against Maj. Gen. V K.
Singh and an Officer of no less stature than the DIG has assured him that
apprehension of loss or liberty is not justified, CPIO in this case cannot be under
compulsion to respond to his RTI application, as per that proviso-and not under
Sec 7(1) itself, which respondents have erroneously pleaded.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10.6.2010
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
10.6.2010
5