- Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed in Union of India V. Central Information Commission & Anr. that the Enforcement Directorate is exempted from providing information as stipulated in the II Schedule of the Right to Information Act (RTI) unless the information corresponds to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
- In this instance, a Superintendent (respondent) working with the Enforcement Directorate filed an application requesting copies of all seniority lists for Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) from 1991 to the present, proposals for promoting LDCs placed before the DPC, the Minutes of the Meetings, and the promotion orders issued on the DPC's recommendations over the period as she had not been given the promotion deserved by her. However, the needful was not done as the CIC invoked its rights under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Simultaneously, while the division bench heard the Letter Patents Appeal (LPA), the UOI requested a stay, which was rejected. As a result, a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Hon'ble SC, contesting the division bench ruling denying the stay, which was also dismissed by the SC, along with a directive to the HC to resolve the question of the RTI Act's applicability to the Appellant before deciding the stay motion.
- The II schedule of the Right to Information Act of 2005 contains a complete list of 26 organizations that are excluded from sharing information due to their status as intelligence and security organizations.
- Section 24 of the RTI Act is one of the most controversial yet crucial sections of the RTI Act. It exempts intelligence and security organizations, like the Enforcement Directorate, from the Act's scope, limiting the level of openness in the government and various public bodies, and hence a limit on democracy itself. One noteworthy case regarding this Section is B Bharathi V. CPIO (2017).
- Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 states that "personal information" does not refer to the information seeker but rather to a third party. As a result, "unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy" is specified in the Section.
- Section 11 of the RTI Act of 2005 outlines the procedure for disclosing third-party information. If an applicant requests information that relates to or was furnished by a third party and that third party has considered that information as secret, the PIO will assess whether or not the information should be disclosed.
- The CIC contended that the learned judge had erred while passing the challenged order as the fact that the respondent organization falls under the scope of Section 24 of the RTI Act was overlooked. However, the Superintendent contended that since the CIC did not provide the required information to her, she could not enforce fundamental and legal rights for promotion. The respondent further claimed that the Appellant failed to provide the respondent with the required information despite an order being passed by Central Administrative Tribunal.
- After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Court held that the Appellant being an intelligence and security organization is undoubtedly exempted from the ambit of the RTI Act. However, when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, the Appellant has no other choice but to comply. The Court believed that the term 'human rights' cannot be given a narrow meaning and that the employees' expectation of promotion was legitimate. Thus, the employees of an intelligence or security organization cannot be deprived of their fundamental and legal rights, as depriving them of these rights would imply the absence of human rights in these organizations.
- Therefore, the learned Court held that even though the Appellant is exempted from providing information regarding proposals for the promotion of third parties as it comes under Section 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, the copies of all the seniority list in respect of LDCs for the period of 1991 till date as well as copies of the proposal for promotion of respondent (LDC) placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copy of the promotion/rejection order issued on the recommendations of DPC from time to time were to be supplied to the respondent by the Appellant.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
