CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000791/LS
Appellant : Shri Mukesh Saini
Public Authority : Ministry of Defence
(through Shri P.K.Gupta, Director (Vig &
Shri S.R. Amin, Under Secretary)
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2009
Date of Decision : 18.11.2009
FACTS
:
The appellant is a retired officer of the Indian Navy and
appears to be facing criminal prosecution. Vide his letter dated
1.11.2008, he had sought information on the following 03 paras :-
“(a) Please provide list of all documents placed before the
competent authority for grant of sanction for prosecution. Also
please indicate the date on which each of such document
received and placed on the said file.
(b) Please provide copy of file notings from page 01 to last page of
the file on which the competent authority (RRM) had perused
and granted sanction to prosecute the undersigned. Please note
that this information cannot be denied in view of the mandatory
section 4 of the RTI Act.
(c) Please provide copy of the notification/Rules of business or any
other proper document which authorizes the Deputy Secretary
(Vigilance), MoD, Shri U.P. Varghese as an authority to sign
sanction letters for prosecution on behalf of competent
authority in respect of Naval Officer.”
2. The CPIO had provided information on paras (a) & (c) but
declined to disclose information on para (b) vide letter dated
26.11.2008. The Appellate Authority had upheld the decision of
CPIO vide order dated 6.2.2009.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order of CPIO/AA.
4. The matter was initially called for hearing on 30.10.2009 but
the parties did not appear. Hence, the matter was adjourned to
18.11.2009.
5. As scheduled, the hearing is held today dated 18.11.2009.
Appellant not present. The Ministry of Defence is represented by the
officers named above. Shri Gupta would submit that information
regarding paras (a) & (c) has already been provided to the appellant
but information regarding para (b) is not disclosable to the appellant.
He has relied on this Commission decision dated 21.8.2006 in this
connection which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
vide order dated 10.11.2006 in W.P. (C) NO. 16712/2006 (Surender
Pal Singh & UOI Ors). The operative paras of the order are extracted
below :-
“The Central Information Commission and the Appellate
Authority and CPIO have held that the prosecution of the
offender is pending before the Special Judge. If the
prosecution of the offender is pending and not yet complete,
the information which is sought by the petitioner may impede
the prosecution of the offender, cannot be faulted. The
emphatic argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since the process of investigation is already over as the
chargesheet has already been filed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, is not correct. Exemption form disclosure of
information can be claimed for any information which may be
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or
prosecution of offenders. Since the chargesheet has been filed
the process of investigation has been completed but the
petitioner cannot contend that there is no apprehension with the
respondent that the information sought by the petitioner may
impede the prosecution of the offender. Whether the
respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the
respondents in the present facts and circumstances. The
apprehension of the respondents is not without any basis. In
any case the prosecution of the offender is pending. Since
prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been
completed, it can not be inferred that divulgence of information
will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The
respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming exemption
under Section 8 (1) (h) from disclosure of information sought
by the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the process of investigation has been
completed as chargesheet has already been filed cannot be
accepted and is contrary to all the circumstances under which
exemption can be claimed under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to
Information Act, 2005.
The decision to decline the request of the petitioner for
the information regarding sanction of his prosecution which
may impede the prosecution of offender, cannot be faulted int
eh facts and circumstances. There is no error or illegality in the
orders passed by the respondents seeking exemption under
Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 nor any
procedural unreasonableness can be inferred.”
6. He would also submit that in view of the latest instructions
issued by DoPT, he would like to resile from the position taken by
him in his earlier decision.
7. As mentioned above, the appellant is not before the
Commission to have his say in the matter as he is incarcerated in
Tihar Jail. Hence, it would be expedient to give him hearing through
video conferencing.
8. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 26.11.2009 1530 hrs. The
matter will be heard through video conferencing.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. Shri P.K. Gupta
Director,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Shri Mukesh Saini
Central Jain No. 1, Tihar,
New Delhi-110064
3. The Dy. Inspector General (Prisons),
Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi
(for information necessary action)
4. The CPIO
Central Jail No. 3, Tihar,
New Delhi
(for making necessary arrangement regarding hearing of Shri
Mukesh Saini through video conferencing at Tihar Jail at the
appointed date and time).