CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00644 dated 14-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Pratap Singh Gandas
Respondent: High Court of Delhi
FACTS
In the present case the appellant filed an application under RTI Act on
4.1.2007 with the PIO of High Court of Delhi and sought a the following
together a certified copy of the order for a probe by Registrar Vigilance on the
appellant’s complaints of 1.2.’04 and 1.6.’04.
Certified copy of the report of probe of Ld. Inspector.
Name and designation of Inspector who carried out the probe.
Name & Designation of competent authority “who filed my
complaints”.
The PIO replied on 26.2.2007 that information cannot be provided due
to the following: –
“The application cannot be said to involve an information which
can be “public domain” within the meaning of expression used in
Rule 5(a) of Delhi High Court (RTI) Rules, 2006. “
Thereafter appellant Shri Gandas preferred 1st appeal on 12.3.2007
with the Registrar (Admn.), HC of Delhi. The 1st appellate authority Shri
Kalam Singh on 3.4.2007 dismissed the appeal stating that, “when a
complaint is received, Registrar (Vigilance) under directions of Hon’ble
Judges inquires into the matters to find out the truth and submits his findings
to the Hon’ble Judge. If on the basis of an inquiry, the competent authority
comes to a conclusion that there is substance in the complaint, it would take
action against the erring officer as per rules and in case, ultimately it turns out
to be a frivolous compliant, the same are filed. As such inquiry and
investigation against an officer is an internal matter between the employer and
the employee and disclosure thereof is not in public domain.”
Thereafter the appellant filed a 2nd appeal before the Commission on
14.3.2007and submitted that information should be provided because as per
section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act only that information can be denied which cannot be
1
provided to Parliament or State Registrar and he also relied upon Section 24
(1) and (4) of RTI Act which provides that the information pertaining to
allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded
under that sub-section.
The appellant has prayed for “action u/s 20 (2) of the RTI Act 2005
against the Ld. PIO and direct the PIO to provide information sought in
the application dated 4.1.2007 without further delay”. No compensation is
however, prayed for.
The appeal was heard on 7-11-2008. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Pratap Singh Gandas
Respondents
Shri Rajiv Bansal, Nominated Counsel, Delhi High Court.
Shri Sudhir Sachdeva, Sr. Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court.
In his written submission Ld. Counsel for Delhi High Court Shri Rajiv
Bansal submitted as follows:
“The complaints containing allegations of misconduct, etc.
involving element of vigilance against the officers of Judicial
Service (S) are routinely received from various sources/ quarters
in the High Court and are examined under the guidance of
Hon’ble Judges in exercise of the jurisdiction and power of the
High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate
judiciary in terms of Article 235. The process of such complaints
is skin to investigation for follow up action for misdemeanour, if
any found. This is a subject which is not only sensitive in nature,
in as much as it involves independence of the judiciary, as
indeed public image and reputation of the concerned Judicial
Officers, but also within the exclusive domain of the High Court,
the authority controlling the work and conduct of such
functionaries. These matters cannot be said to involve an
information which is “in the public domain” within the meaning of
the expression used in Rules 5 (a).”
He submitted, however, that as an institution the Delhi High Court is
anxious to promote transparency but cannot countenance attempts to bro-
beat the court which are attempts cannot be construed in the public interest
and in that manner against the interest of the State and, therefore, worthy of
exemption u/s 8 (1) (a).
2
DECISION NOTICE
The issue before us is whether the information that has been sought is
of public relevance the process of providing information on which the rules of
the High Court of Delhi are framed in order to facilitate and not to hamper.
The First Appellate Authority has held that “inquiry and investigation against
an officer is an internal matter between the employer and employee and
disclosure thereof is not in public domain.”
In our view, the First Appellate Authority has erred in coming to this
conclusion, because the judges are public persons and hold public posts so
they cannot be said to be within the purview of a private employer/ employee
relationship. Moreover the Metropolitan Magistrates are appointed by the
State Govt. and are employees of State Government unlike Hon’ble Judges of
High Courts.
In light of the above, we arrive at the conclusion that information with
regard to public activity, which is an investigation, ordered by an institution as
august as the High Court cannot be construed to be private activity.
Moreover, we cannot agree that disclosing the results of investigation in which
the name of the party investigated is cleared will tarnish the name of that party
when such an action is compared to any effort to keep such information
exempt from disclosure, which can only lead to the rise of the unwarranted
suspicion and mistrust, implying concealment. On the other hand we agree
that the remaining information could constitute breach of any confidentiality
that may have been part of the understanding of investigators and witnesses
in conducting this investigation. It will be open to CPIO therefore to sever such
part of the information sought that is considered otherwise exempt by
exercising severability u/s 10 sub-section (1) of the RTI Act, 2005
Under the circumstances the PIO Delhi High Court is directed to
provide a certified copy of the order for a probe by Registrar Vigilance and a
certified copy of the report of probe of the Inspector (with severance if any) to
3
appellant Shri Pratap Singh Gandas within 10 working days of the date of
issue of this decision notice. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed in part, but
without cost.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber
on Monday, the 10th November 2008. Notice of this decision be given free of
cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10-11-2008
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
10-11-2008
4