CBI appeals against Delhi HC order on RTI exemption for corruption allegations and violations of human rights
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement New Delhi, May 15: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday approached the Division Bench…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, May 15: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday approached the Division Bench of Delhi High Court challenging a single bench order passed on January 30, 2024, observing that the purpose of the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act is to permit information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations to be provided to the respondent, reports ANI.
CBI through appeal seeks to set aside the single bench order which held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not exempted from the RTI and has to provide the information sought on corruption and human rights violation.
The bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan on Wednesday issued notice to the IFS officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi (Respondent) in the matter.
The CBI appeal submitted that the impugned judgment passed by Single Judge suffers from grave error insofar as Single Judge failed to take into consideration the legislative intent behind the RTI Act, 2005. The objective of the RTI Act is right to information is valuable but is not absolute.
As such, the Legislature, in its wisdom, introduced an exemption within the contours of Section 24 of the RTI Act in an endeavour to permit intelligence and security organizations like Appellant-CBI to function freely and independently while maintaining the secrecy necessary to the work assigned to them.
This exemption, however, is subject to the rider that the information on the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded.
Also Read- ED raids Jharkhand bizman, whose photo with Nirmala Sitharaman went viral
A mere allegation of corruption or human rights violation would not be sufficient to invoke the proviso of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, in the absence of any supporting material that proves such a charge in its evidentiary value has strength.
It is also a well-settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word ‘corruption’ or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.
The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI Applicant to seek information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, said CBI in appeal.
The CBI earlier moved Delhi HC challenging an order dated November 25, 2019, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) allowing an appeal filed by Sanjeev Chaturvedi (Chief Vigilance officer of AIIMS) and directing the CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi to provide a certified copy of all the file noting, documents, correspondences related to an investigation done by CBI on corruption complaint dated July 3, 2014, from the then CVO of AIIMS, New Delhi, regarding corruption in purchase in the trauma centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
He had also sought to provide a codified copy of all the file noting/documents/correspondences related to an investigation done by CBI in Preliminary Enquiry (PE) registered by ACB, New Delhi, in January 2014, including the documents related to an investigation done by CBI into a transaction of their properties, as mentioned in the said P.E.
He further sought to provide a certified copy of all the file notes, documents, and correspondences into the investigation done by CBI into the corruption complaint dated May 19, 2014, received from the Vigilance Cell of AIIMS, New Delhi regarding corruption in the surgery department of AIIMS, New Delhi and about which a half-baked report was sent by CBI to Union Health Ministry on December 17, 2014.
He also sought to provide a certified copy of all the file notes, documents, and correspondences on the complaint dated January 22, 2016, addressed to the then Director (CBI) on the complaint against a shoddy investigation by CBI, order of January 30 noted. (Courtesy ANI)
