{"id":165597,"date":"2009-12-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-14T14:58:39","modified_gmt":"2019-02-14T09:28:39","slug":"shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009<\/div>\n
              CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                         Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/01257 dated 18.7.2008\n                           Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -       Shri S. K. Bansal\nRespondent           -   Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)\n                                 Decision announced 31.12.'09\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         By an application of 9.5.08 Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal, Dy. Chief Engineer
\n(Works), Southern Railway, Chennai applied to the SP, CBI AC Wing, Kochi,
\nseeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “I request you kindly to supply me with the following information u\/s
\n         6 of Right to Information Act, 2005:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         a)     Certified copy of the final report prepared by the CBI in
\n                connection with the above agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         b)     Certified copy of the correspondence exchanged between
\n                CBI and railway administration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         c)     Certified copy of the official recommendation made by the
\n                CBI to take up departmental action against the officers and
\n                staff connected with the above agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         d)     Certified copy of the relevant noting file.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         I state that Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005 are not applicable to
\n         my case as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
\n         Bhagat Singh vs. Central Information Commission. The full text of
\n         the above judgment is available in the Central Information
\n         Commission official website. In addition, I would also request you
\n         to kindly refer to Central Information Commission’s decision No.
\n         1972\/IC(A)\/2008 dated 20.2.2008 in the case of Shri Naresh Chand
\n         vs. Department of Telecommunications and CBI, which is also
\n         applicable to my present request.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         To this Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal received a response dated 3.6.08 from
\nSP, CBI, SPE Kochi informing him as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Copy of the 3 charge sheets (final reports) alongwith copy of
\n         documents in these cases to be provided to the accused persons
\n         have already been furnished to the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge-
\n         II, CBI, Ernakulam. In case, another copy of charge sheets (final
\n         reports) filed in the above said cases is required by you, it is<\/p>\n
                                              1<\/span>
\n        requested to make an additional payment of Rs. 132\/- i.e. at the
\n       rate of Rs. 2\/- per page for 66 pages towards the charges for
\n       furnishing the copy of final reports.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       With regard to the supply of copies of documents requested by you
\n       vide Sl. Nos. (b) (c) and (d) in all the 3 applications, it is intimated
\n       that your request stands rejected u\/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Aggrieved Shri Bansal moved an appeal before the DIG CBI Chennai
\npleading specifically, as below:\n<\/p>\n
       “2.1) I state that invariably in all the cases investigated by them
\n             the CBI officials prepare the final report after they conclude
\n             their investigations. Based on the said final report only, CBI
\n             files charge sheets against the accused persons. In other
\n             words, the final report is the ‘Mother’ and the charge sheet is
\n             its ‘off-shoot’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.2) What I wanted is the certified copies of the Final Reports
\n             prepared by the CBI in connection with the aforesaid three
\n             agreements. However, the CPIO has misunderstood the
\n             same for the charge sheets filed against me. I do not
\n             (repeat-do not) require additional copies of the charge
\n             sheets. I request that the CPIO, CBI, Cochin may kindly be
\n             directed to supply me the final reports prepared by the CBI in
\n             connection with Agreements No. 437\/CN\/99 dated
\n             17.11.1999, No. 155\/CN\/99 dated 15.4.1999 and no.
\n             205\/CN\/199 dated 28.5.1999.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.0) Provisions of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 are not
\n             applicable. Insofar as other documents are concerned, the
\n             CPIO has refused to supply me the same taking recourse to
\n             section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. I would bring to your
\n             kind notice that for taking recourse to section 8 (1) (h) of the
\n             RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO has not assigned any reason,
\n             whatsoever, which practice has been deprecated by the
\n             Hon’ble Central Information Commission in many a case.
\n       4.0) In fact, in my RTI applications dated 9.5.2008 itself, I had
\n             brought to the notice of the CPIO that Section 8 (1) (h) is not
\n             applicable to my case, as has been held by the Hon’ble High
\n             Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh vs. Central Information
\n             Commission. In addition, I also brought to the notice of the
\n             CPIO the decision rendered by the CIC in Naresh Chand vs.
\n             Department of Telecommunications & CBI Decision No.
\n             1972\/IC(A)\/2008 dated 20.2.2008. Unfortunately, the CPIO
\n             has brushed aside the above and rejected my request taking
\n             recourse to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, that too
\n             without assigning any reason.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
            In his order of 1.7.08, however, DIG CBI ACR Chennai has, without
\ndebating the merits of applying the ruling of the High Court of Delhi to this case,
\ndismissed the appeal as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           ‘2.      Regarding your request regarding certified copy of final
\n                    report prepared by the CBI in connection with the above
\n                    agreement 1 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    According to section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, there
\n                    shall be no obligation to give any information which would
\n                    impede the process of investigation or apprehension or
\n                    prosecution of offenders. As the information sought by you,
\n                    if furnished, would impede the prosecution of offenders, the
\n                    same cannot be furnished.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3.       Regarding your request regarding (a) certified copy of
\n                    correspondence exchanged between CBI and railway
\n                    administration, (b) certified copy of the official
\n                    recommendation made by the CBI to take up departmental
\n                    action against the officers and staff connected with the
\n                    above agreement and (c) certified copy of the relevant noting
\n                    file:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    In connection with the above, the officers concerned have
\n                    recorded these noting in belief and good faith for the
\n                    superior officer and with confidence and trust that these
\n                    would never be disclosed to anyone. As these are in the
\n                    form of fiduciary relationship and invoking section 8 (i) (j) of
\n                    RTI Act, the above said information cannot be furnished.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           This has brought Shri Bansal in second appeal before us with the
\nfollowing prayer:\n<\/p>\n
           “a)      Set aside the letter no. DP\/CHN\/2008\/3683\/C78-(viii)\/RTI\/
\n                    06\/SPE\/KER dated 3.6.2008 of the 1st Respondent herein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           b)       Set aside the letter no. RTI Act 2005\/2008 dated 1.7.2008
\n                    of the 2nd Respondent herein;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           c)       Direct the Respondents to supply me all the information
\n                    sought for by me in my three RTI applications dated
\n                    9.5.2008 and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           d)       Grant me any other relief(s) the Hon’ble Commission
\n                    may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this
\n                    case and thus render justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
    The agreement referred to is that of 17.11.’09 which was the subject of CBI’s enquiry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
        Shri Bansal has specifically contested the non speaking order of the CPIO
\nin rejecting his RTI application and the applicability of exemption either u\/s 8(1)\n<\/p>\n
(h) or 8(1) (j) in his case. Subsequently, Shri Bansal has informed us of a change
\nof his address from Chennai to Kolkata.\n<\/p>\n
       The appeal was heard by videoconference on 31.12.2009. The following
\nare present:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant at NIC Studio, Kolkata
\n             Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Respondents at NIC Studio Kochi \/ Chennai
\n             Ms. Shiny, SP, CBI, Kochi
\n             Shri Ashok Kumar, Jt. Director, CBI<\/p>\n
       Ms. Shiny, SP, CBI Kochi submitted that there was no separate
\ncorrespondence or report of the investigation in this case but all form part of the
\nsame report, which also contains the CBI Counsel’s advice on the manner in
\nwhich the prosecution requires to be conducted. Disclosing this information to
\nthe appellant will undoubtedly impede the whole process of prosecution since it
\nwill give to the accused the entire line of reasoning intended to be taken by the
\nprosecuting agency before the Court. Nevertheless, the final report that has
\nbeen submitted to the Court is now part of the charge-sheet which has already
\nbeen provided to the appellant, as it is to all accused. Jt. Director Shri Ashok
\nKumar further submitted that u\/s 91 Cr.P.C. Shri Bansal, being an accused, has
\nthe liberty to approach the Court to obtain any information with regard to the
\nprosecution, which he deems necessary to support his defence. However, there
\nis no difference between the final report of the CBI and the charge-sheet
\nbecause it is the final report based on the investigation which constitutes the
\ncharge-sheet at the time of initiation of prosecution before the Trial Court. On the
\nother hand, the CBI does indeed have a file on the subject, which contains noting
\nbased on information provided by different officers and sources which in a
\nvigilance case requires careful protection.      Disclosing such information will
\ncompromise the entire process of prosecution and open those sources to
\nunwarranted pressures.     Hence, he has pleaded a fiduciary relationship and<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span>
\n invasion of privacy seeking exemption from disclosure under sub=sections *e)
\nand (j) of Sec. 8 (1).\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant Shri Bansal on the other hand submitted that there is a
\ndifference between the final report and the charge sheet.          He had indeed
\nreceived a copy of the charge-sheet but he wished to know the conclusions on
\nwhich the investigating agency has come, on the basis of which he is being
\nprosecuted, in order to defend himself. This information may now be provided.\n<\/p>\n
                            DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       In this case what Jt. Director CBI Sh. Ashok Kumar has pleaded in the
\nhearing is neither exemption from disclosure u\/s 8(1) (h) nor 8(1) (j) but rather
\nexemption from disclosure u\/s 8(1) (g) which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or
\n       physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
\n       assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
\n       purposes;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It is quite possible to make disclosure within the principle of severability
\nunder sub sec. (1) of Sec. 10 without disclosing the identity of the source of
\ninformation or assistance given in confidence through notings or even reference
\nin any final report. What stands acknowledged in the hearing is that there is a
\nreport prepared by the CBI recommending prosecution, which is different to the
\nfinal report, which becomes part of the charge-sheet. It is this report which not
\nhaving been submitted to the Court cannot be deemed to be the property of the
\nCourt, but is in fact held by and under the control of the public authority i.e. the
\nCBI. The question is, therefore, can this information be disclosed?\n<\/p>\n
       In the Delhi High Court ruling in W.P. No. 3114\/2007 Bhagat Singh vs.
\nChief Information Commissioner, Hon’ble Ravinder Bhat J. has held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
 “11. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
\nUnited Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right
\n“to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
\nmedia, regardless of frontiers”. In Secretary Ministry of Information
\nand Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association
\nof Bengal and others<\/a> (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court
\nremarket about this right in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
      “The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the
\n      right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free
\n      speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary
\n      that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a
\n      range of opinions on all public issues. A successful
\n      democracy posits an “aware” citizenry. Diversity of opinions,
\n      views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizen
\n      to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental
\nright under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India for the first
\ntime by Justice K. K. Mathew in the State of UP vs. Raj Narain,
\n(1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court
\non a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to
\nInformation Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The Act is an effectuation of the Right to freedom of speech
\nand expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society,
\ninformation and access to information holds the key to resources,
\nbenefits and distribution of powers. Information, more than any
\nother element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By
\none fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official
\nbarriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept
\naside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few
\nexceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in
\nthe possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by
\nthe Act.     As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the
\nenactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to
\nhold the government’s and its instrumentalities accountable to the
\ngoverned. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
\nconstruing the provisions contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule
\nand exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a
\nrestriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly
\nconstrued. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the
\nvery right self. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
\ninformation is granted if it would impede the process of
\ninvestigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span>
\n           information, the authority withholding information must show
\n          satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information
\n          would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be
\n          germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should
\n          be reasonable and based on some material.             Sans this
\n          consideration, section 8(1) (h) and other such provisions would
\n          become the haven for dodging demands for information.\n<\/p>\n
          This ruling has been subsequently quoted approvingly in further rulings of
\nthe Delhi High Court notably in the comprehensive decision of Hon’ble Sanjeev
\nKhanna J. of 30.11.09 in WP (CIVIL) NOS.8396\/2009, 16907\/2006, 4788\/2008,
\n9914\/2009, 6085\/2008, 7304\/2007, 7930\/2009 & 3607 of 2007,                    Ministry of
\nPersonnel, Public Grievances & Pensions & Ors vs. Central Information
\nCommission, PD Khandelwal & Ors., in which the learned judge has further
\ndeveloped this ruling as follows with a bearing on the issue here.\n<\/p>\n
          “85. Mere pendency of investigation, or apprehension or
\n          prosecution of offenders is not a good ground to deny information.
\n          Information, however, can be denied when furnishing of the same
\n          would impede process of investigation, apprehension or
\n          prosecution of offenders. The word ‘impede’ indicates that
\n          furnishing of information can be denied when disclosure would
\n          jeopardize or would hamper investigation, apprehension or
\n          prosecution of offenders. In Law Lexicon, Ramanatha Aiyar 2nd
\n          Edition 1997 it is observed that the word ‘impede’ is not
\n          synonymous with ‘obstruct’. An obstacle which renders access to
\n          an inclosure inconvenient, impedes the entrance thereto, but does
\n          not obstruct it, if sufficient room be left to pass in and out. ‘Obstruct’
\n          means to prevent, to close up.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          86. The word ‘impede’ therefore does not mean total obstruction
\n          and compared to the word ‘obstruction’ or ‘prevention’, the word
\n          ‘impede’ requires hindrance of a lesser degree. It is less injurious
\n          than prevention or an absolute obstacle. Contextually in Section
\n          8(1)(h) it will mean anything which would hamper and interfere with
\n          procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold
\n          back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or
\n          prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if alleged, must
\n          be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny
\n          information. To claim exemption under the said Sub-section it
\n          has to be ascertained in each case whether the claim by the
\n          public authority has any reasonable basis. 2 Onus under Section
\n          19(5) of the RTI Act is on the public authority. The Section does not
\n2<\/span>
\n    Emphasis ours<\/p>\n
                                              7<\/span>
\n            provide for a blanket exemption covering all information relating to
\n           investigation process and even partial information wherever
\n           justified can be granted. Exemption under Section 8(1)(h)
\n           necessarily is for a limited period and has an end point i.e. when
\n           process of investigation is complete or offender has been
\n           apprehended and prosecution ends. Protection from disclosure will
\n           also come to an end when disclosure of information no longer
\n           causes impediment to prosecution of offenders, apprehension of
\n           offenders or further investigation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The learned justice has then gone on to rule, in the context of disclosure
\nof postmortem reports while investigation and prosecution are still under process,
\nthat exemption may however be granted when disclosure “would jeopardize and
\ncreate hurdles in apprehension and prosecution of offenders who may once
\ninformation is made available take steps which may make it difficult and prevent
\nthe State from effective and proper investigation and prosecution.” 3<\/p>\n
           No doubt respondents have come up with detailed arguments as to how
\nthey feel the disclosure of the information sought will impede the process of
\nprosecution including equating the final report with the case diaries which are not
\ndisclosable under the law as contended by Ms. Shiny, SP, CBI, Kochi. These
\nshould have been the reasons given by both CPIO and Appellate Authority to
\nappellant Shri Bansal at the time of responding to his initial application,
\nparticularly since he had cited the above decision of the Delhi High Court in his
\nfavour. Nevertheless, we have ruled on this matter in a series of decisions of this
\nCommission.           In    our     Decision      Notice     of    8.9.’09     in    Appeal          No.
\nCIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00622; Ms Suman Tyagi vs. CBI we have held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “On point No.3 there is an issue of case diaries. It is correct that
\n           case diaries are part of internal investigation and not necessarily
\n           disclosable. However, under the RTI Act 2005 all information that is
\n           held by a public authority is disclosable unless it is exempt from
\n           disclosure. In this case the exemption sought is under Section 8 (1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (h), which as can be seen from the quotation cited above cannot be
\n           held to exempt the information sought in the present case from
\n           disclosure. However, it is quite possible that in the reports names of
\n           individuals who have assisted the investigation and sources of<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n    Para 90, in portion dealing with WP( C) no. 7930\/2009 Addl Commissioner (Crime) vs. CIC & Anr.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
        information are mentioned that are indeed exempt from disclosure
\n       u\/s 8 (1) (g). However, under the severability clause contained in
\n       sub Section (1) of Section 10 it will be possible to disclose the
\n       information sought after deleting the exempted information. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This followed from upon the following discussion in our analysis of the
\nrecord in out decision of this case:\n<\/p>\n
       “On point No. 3 Shri Gaur submitted that this information has been
\n       culled from the case diaries which are not disclosable under the
\n       RTI Act and are confidential. However, these reports are also not
\n       part of the documents submitted to the court in connection with this
\n       case. Besides, he submitted that this report is a confidential report
\n       for in-house use of the Department and goes into the internal
\n       discussion of the matter, which could have the effect of
\n       compromising the prosecution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri S. K. Tyagi assisting appellant submitted that these documents
\n       cannot be kept confidential as they concerned the appellant herself,
\n       particularly the information sought at point No. 1, which is a copy of
\n       the statement made by her and can, therefore, in no way be cited
\n       as an impediment to the prosecution.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In a decision in Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/000015; Prakash Chandra
\nvs. Directorate of Vigilance, GNCT Delhi announced on 13.4.’09, followed by
\nlevy of penalty for non-compliance on 10.9.’09, we have held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       This judgment has effectively overruled the earlier orders of the CIC
\n       on this matter. In the instant case the investigations are clearly over
\n       and therefore we would only have to see whether releasing the
\n       information would impede the process of prosecution of offenders.
\n       If the basis of prosecuting the accused is the truth as it exists on
\n       the records, it is not possible to understand how it could impede the
\n       process of prosecution of the offender. If there are any details in the
\n       SP’s report which would create any doubts in the mind of the judge
\n       who is conducting the trial, this must certainly be disclosed in the
\n       interests of justice. The Commission does not agree with the
\n       grounds given by the respondent to refuse giving the information,
\n       and cannot see how the truth could impede the prosecution. If
\n       anything Justice demands that the truth must be placed before the
\n       Court. Therefore the Commission does not find merit in the denial
\n       of the information under Section 8 (1) (h).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       However we do see merit in the respondent’s grounds of Section 8
\n       (1) (g). If some people have given information based on which the
\n       prosecution has been launched, revealing their identity could result<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span>
\n        in some harm to them, and revealing their identities would also
\n       reveal the source of information. The Commission directs that the
\n       PIO apply the severability clause of Section 10 and blank out the
\n       names of those who have provided the information in confidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This Appeal was allowed. These decisions of this Commission, however,
\npredate the decision of the Delhi High Court quoted above in WP(C) no.
\n7930\/2009 Addl. Commissioner (Crime) vs. CIC & Anr. The issue now therefore
\nis whether this Decision will now override the Decisions of this Commission. As
\nhighlighted by us in quoting from this Decision however, is that in deciding upon
\naccepting this exemption under the said Sub-section we must ascertain, in this
\ncase, whether the claim by the public authority has any reasonable basis. In the
\npresent case, the request for disclosure has two parts:\n<\/p>\n
       (i)       Request regarding certified copy of final report prepared by the
\n                 CBI in connection with the agreement under question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)      Request regarding (a) certified copy of correspondence
\n                 exchanged between CBI and railway administration, (b) certified
\n                 copy of the official recommendation made by the CBI to take up
\n                 departmental action against the officers and staff connected
\n                 with the agreement and (c) certified copy of the relevant noting
\n                 file.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       On these two issues, respondents have successfully established that all
\nthe documents connected with the prosecution of appellant have been submitted
\nto the Court, and copies provided to appellant. If there any specific documents
\nthat he seeks that are vital to his defence he may seek these by applying under
\nthe law to the trial court. Once the prosecution has been launched, moreover, the
\nCourt becomes the holder of the information and in legal control of all such and is
\nthus the public authority that alone may grant access in accordance with the
\ndefinition of the “right to information” u\/s 2(j), notwithstanding even if physical
\npossession may still be with the prosecuting agency. The recourse under the RTI
\nAct for appellant Shri Bansal will therefore be as prescribed in sub-section (1) (a)<\/p>\n
                                        10<\/span>
\n of Sec. 6 of the Act. The decision of CPIO as elucidated by appellate authority
\nwith regard to issue at (i) above is therefore upheld.\n<\/p>\n
         On the issue at (ii) above however, this clearly includes information
\noutside the pale of the trial court. Of this, only providing ‘certified copy of the
\nrelevant noting’ could conceivably have the effect of impeding the prosecution.
\nThe following information will therefore be provided to appellant Shri Bansal
\nwithin fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice:\n<\/p>\n
   (a)      Certified copy of the correspondence exchanged between CBI
\n            and railway administration.\n<\/p>\n
   (b)      Certified copy of the official recommendation made by the CBI to take
\n            up departmental action against the officers and staff connected with
\n            the above agreement.\n<\/p>\n
         On the request for “certified copy of the relevant noting file”, CPIO Ms
\nShiny will reexamine the noting in light of the two rulings of the High Court of
\nDelhi quoted by us in discussing the present case and, and provide all such
\ninformation which would not directly impede the process of prosecution applying
\nthe principle of severability as defined in Section 10 (1) of the RTI Act. This issue
\nmay be disposed of within 15 working days of the date of receipt of this decision
\nnotice. The appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no cost. However,
\nbecause the information now directed to be provided was not provided within the
\ntime frame mandated u\/s 7 (1) it will, u\/s 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, be provided
\nfree of charge.\n<\/p>\n
         Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced on this thirty-first day
\nof December 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n 31.12.’09<\/p>\n
                                          11<\/span>
\n Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n31.12.’09<\/p>\n
                                     12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/01257 dated 18.7.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri S. K. Bansal Respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Decision announced 31.12.’09 Facts : By an application of 9.5.08 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3925,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009"},"wordCount":3925,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009","name":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 31 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-14T09:28:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-bansal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-31-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri S. K. Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 31 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=165597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}