Section 8(1)(h) Of RTI Act Specifically Exempts CBI’s Enquiry Report From Disclosure As It Would Impede Investigation: Delhi HC

In the present matter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on April 4, 2016, who is a member of the Indian Audit & Accounts Service, and was working with NSEL as a member of the Department. As per the material placed on record there were complaints and the CBI is conducting investigation regarding the activities of NSEL which resulted in a loss of about Rs.5,600 crores in the year 2013, with around 13,000 investors being investigated by different investigating agencies. It is pertinent to note that investigation is yet to be completed in the matter.

Accordingly, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “This Court is of the opinion that the information that is being sought by the Petitioner would impede the investigation conducted by the CBI involving a large-scale fraud, including many accused. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation revealing a copy of the entire report of the CBI. Further, if such information falls in the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process”.

Advocate Vidya Sagar appeared for the petitioner and CGSC Rahul Sharma appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the petitioner was aggrieved by order dated November 11, 2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejecting an appeal filed by him which ultimately upheld the order passed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs. The petitioner was a retired officer of the Indian Audit & Accounts Service. As per the material placed on record the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was investigating a case relating to irregularities in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) where the Petitioner was working as Deputy Secretary/Director on deputation with the Department of Consumer Affairs

It was the contention of the petitioner that Section 24 of the RTI Act does bestow complete impunity upon the CBI and thus CBI is bound to divulge information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations against him. It was further stated that only such of those information which will impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender alone cannot be divulged under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, had sought for a copy of the report of the CBI given in July, 2015, along with the copies of notings at various levels in the Department of Economic Affairs in connection with the processing of the CBI report, the Action Taken Report (ATR) thereon.

While citing an array of cases, he also referred to Union of India v. Manjit Singh Bali, W.P.(C) 6341/2015, wherein this Court has held that merely stating that the information given to the applicant under the RTI Act would impede the investigation is not sufficient and there has to be specific disclosures as to how the information sought for would impede the investigation.

Therefore, while referring to the cases referred to by the petitioner, the bench noted, “Most of the judgments on which the Petitioner has placed reliance are where the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. In such cases, this Court has held that information which is contained in the chargesheet and which has been submitted in the Court can be disclosed to the third parties who are not an accused in the matter. Since the investigation in those cases is already over, the said judgments cannot be applied to the present case where the investigation is ongoing”.

“Despite this exercise not being necessary to answer the question raised in this writ petition, this Court has delved into the question only to satisfy its conscience that the Petitioner's rights, along with the principles of natural justice, are not being prejudiced by not providing him the information sought and whether lack of this information would have negatively impacted the Petitioner in making an effective reply to the allegations made in the SCN. Resultantly, the writ petition fails”, the bench further observed.

Cause Title: Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7314]