The Kerala High Court has significantly opined that the information authority cannot shield the name of those officers who have been found guilty or were dismissed from service on charges of corruption or human rights violations.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan disposed of a petition filed by the State Public Information Officer of the Crime Records Bureau (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram). The Information Officer had moved the High Court challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC) which required police to publish details of corrupt officers found guilty in a court of law or dismissed from service on charges of corruption and human rights violations.
Additionally, the SIC had also directed the information authorities to upload on the police website the names of the officers against whom charges of corruption or human rights violations were established after an investigation.
The Government Pleader, Mable C Kurian, appearing for the Police Information Authorities asserted that the Right to Information Act only required the publication of information relating to “organisational matters”. Any publication of other details would “demoralise the entire police force”, it was argued.
Further, the Government Pleader asserted that “a person against whom a finding of guilt has not been arrived at by a Court of law is presumed to be innocent and in that view of the matter, the State Commission was not justified in ordering the disclosure of the name.”
It was also argued that the details of those police officers against whom final report have been laid as would be protected from disclosure because it would amount to information that relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Standing Counsel for the SIC, M Ajay, and the original applicant for information, journalist Radhakrishnan R, submitted that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to impart and receive information. It was further argued that the information sought by the journalist was of corrupt officers in the police force and of those officers who had indulged in other violations.
Further, the standing counsel urged that the citizens have every right to receive information about the law enforcement officers and the manner in which the police department functions to initiate corrective measures, which is the essence of democracy.
After considering the submissions, the Court agreed with the SIC ultimately and held that the names of officers convicted on corruption or human rights violations such as wrongful confinement, sexual abuse, rape, and use of abusive language and were removed from services after a due process of inquiry would necessarily have to be published on the website.
“The petitioners will not be justified in shielding the names of such officers and will be bound to publish the same notwithstanding the fact that Section 4 does not oblige them to publish such information”, read the judgment. Section 4 lists information that a public authority is mandated to publish under provisions of the RTI Act.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V clarified, however, that the details of officers against whom the offences had been established on investigation, but a conclusive finding has not been arrived at by a court of law need not be published.
The judgment may be read here:
Related:
Gujarat reported highest number of police custodial deaths: Centre in LS
CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs
TN custodial death report indicts police, hospital staff and jail authorities