CBI not liable to furnish information sought under RTI Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not required to disclose information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005. [S Rajeev Kumar v. The Director].A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly noted that as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, certain organisations are exempted from furnishing information, except that which pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.It further noted that the Central government, via a 2011 notification issued in exercise of its powers under said provision, had included the CBI and other investigating agencies under the second Schedule of the Act."Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency and the National Intelligence Grid are included in the second schedule to the Act, 2005. Therefore, it can be seen that once CBI is included in the second schedule in contemplation of Section 24 of the Act, 2005, the said organization is not liable to furnish any information," the Court said in its judgment..The order was issued in an appeal against the order of a single-judge that dismissed a plea challenging the refusal of the CBI to furnish the appellant with certain documents that he had sought under the provisions of the RTI Act.The appellant was a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs whose retirement benefits were withheld on the basis of a case registered against him by the CBI.The appellant contended that one CBI officer, with ulterior/corrupt motives, manipulated the statements of some witnesses to make the prosecution case. On his complaint, an enquiry against the said officer was carried out and closed on the orders of the CBI Director.However, when he requested a copy of the enquiry report, as the same is a crucial document having direct impact to prove his innocence, the same was not issued to him..The appellant then submitted an application under the RTI Act for securing a copy of the enquiry report. However, the same was declined by an order of the Information Officer, CBI New Delhi, and appeals against the same were dismissed by the appellate authorities under the Act.When a single-judge of the High Court dismissed the appeals against the said orders, the appellant approached the Division Bench..His primary contention was that no reasons are assigned in the order rejecting the RTI applications or in orders of the appellate authorities confirming the rejection.It was pointed out that he had moved a separate plea before the High Court to quash the proceedings against him and having this enquiry report would be vital to defend his case.On the other hand, counsel appearing for the CBI contended that the information sought by the appellant comes under one of the exempted categories provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the CBI is privileged to withhold information by virtue of the protection granted under Section 24 of the Act, he argued. .The Court noted that the rejection orders and the orders confirming the same did not elaborate on the reasons for the decisions. However, on all other aspects, the Court concurred with the arguments raised on behalf of the CBI. It held,"So also, as per Section 8(1)(j) of Act, 2005, there shall be no obligation to give information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is equally important to note that, the appellant, in fact, is seeking third-party information only for his purpose, which is not permitted as per the above-deliberated provision." While dismissing the appeal, the Court also noted that the appellant was seeking third-party information only for his purpose, which is not permitted under Section 8 of the RTI Act..The appellant was represented by Advocates PA Augustian and MA Baby. Deputy Solicitor General for India S Manu appeared for the CBI..[Read Judgment]