Upholding the order of a single-judge bench, a division bench of the Kerala High Court held that the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) is not liable to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is included in the second schedule of the Act, which exempts security organisations established by the Central Government.
The HC was hearing an appeal of a retired assistant commissioner of customs and central excise, which was filed against the order of the single-judge bench.
THE CASE
The appellant was being tried by a special court in a case registered against him in relation to serious criminal misconduct in the capacity of superintendent of customs at Air Cargo Complex, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant alleged that the investigating officer had manipulated the documents and statements of witnesses.
The CBI director then ordered an inquiry against the officer and the appellant sought an inquiry report under the RTI Act, which was rejected by the agency.
The appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected, after which he approached the HC.
The single-judge bench also rejected his appeal, after which he moved the HC.
THE ARGUMENTS
The counsel for the appellant argued that the issue is basically related to corruption and the CBI is bound by law to furnish the details under the RTI Act. He also argued that the orders impugned are wholly evasive, opaque, and untenable and urged the court to set aside the order. Further, he submitted that the appellate authorities failed to appreciate that it was a case of clear corruption and violation of human rights.
The Assistant Solicitor General argued that orders have been passed by the Information Officer, Appellate Authority, and the CBI as per law and there is no illegality. He also argued that CBI has been notified under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as also Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) that the information sought is prohibited as it would impede not only the process of investigation, but also disclose personal information which would seriously prejudice the interest.
HC ORDER
The High Court, while agreeing with the arguments of the Assistant Solicitor General, stated: “The provisions of section 24, which opens with a non obstante clause provide that it will not be applicable to the intelligence security organisation specified in the second schedule being the Government organisation established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations with the Government pertaining to allegation and the proviso provided therein with regard to the information of allegation and corruption, are not excluded under the aforementioned subsection.”
The HC dismissed the appeal, stating the orders under challenge “are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any illegality or misleading of the provisions”.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment