The Delhi High Court has held that when a public authority withholds information under the Right to Information Act, “the burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information could impede the investigation.”
The Single-judge Bench further held that “the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.”
An appeal was filed before Justice Jayant Nath against a Central Information Commission (CIC) order holding that non-disclosure of information was justified and exemption could be claimed under the RTI Act, as the petitioner had pending criminal and disciplinary proceedings against him.
The court was of the opinion that facts, including details regarding the grave allegations against the petitioner and the pending criminal, and departmental proceedings against him, were not disclosed. However, the CIC dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the proceedings initiated by CBI are pending and exemption can be claimed under Section 8 of the RTI Act that lays down certain conditions when exemptions are allowed.
Section 8(1)(h) of the Act provides that information which “would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders” need not be disclosed to citizens. On examination, the High Court observed that what follows from the legal position is that where a public authority takes recourse of this section, to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. The word ‘impede’ would mean anything that would hamper or interfere with the investigation or prosecution of the offender.
Further, the word ‘investigation’ used in Section 8 (1) (h) of the Act should be construed rather broadly and include all enquiries, verification of records, and assessments. “In all such cases, the enquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report from the investigating/enquiry officer”, said the Single Bench.
Since, the CIC in its order, made no attempt whatsoever to show as to how giving the information sought for would hamper the investigation and the on-going disciplinary proceedings, the court therefore decided to quash its order. The Court also remanded the matter back to CIC for consideration afresh in terms of the legal position held by the High Court in the present matter.
Justice Jayant Nath also referred to case of Union of India vs. Manjit Singh Bali (2018), where the High Court of Delhi had held that the exclusion under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act (information which would impede process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders) has to be read in conjunction with Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Such denial must be reasonable and in the interest of public order.
The judgment may be read here:
Related:
Delhi HC stays CIC order directing Air Force to disclose PM’s travel details
Cannot disclose PM’s entourage details for security reasons: IAF plea in Delhi HC