9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 4. The present petition has been preferred by the ED challenging the impugned order dated 27th November, 2019 passed by the CIC. 5. The RTI Application dated 30th January, 2018 was filed by the RTI Applicant/Respondent in this case i.e. Mr. Ajay Kumar, who was an employee of the Income-tax Department seeking documents and other information relating to Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Enforcement Officer since 1990 till date. The CPIO filed its reply dated 19th February, 2018 in which reliance was placed upon Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 read with 2nd Schedule under which ED is one of the intelligence/security organisations exempted from disclosing information under the RTI Act, 2005. 6. The appeal which was filed by the RTI Applicant/Respondent was also rejected on 16th March, 2018 by relying upon the Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The matter then travelled to the CIC which disposed the matter vide its impugned order dated 27th January, 2019. The CIC held that the issue would be covered by this Court's decision in Union of India v. Adarsh Sharma [WPC 7453 of 2011, dated 19-10-2013] and that the information is excluded under section 24. The CIC went on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to supply the information sought by Respondent No. 2 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the CIC's order and further held the exemption sought by the Petitioner under section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was unjustified and untenable. Submissions 11. The Respondents in both these cases have not appeared despite notice being served upon them. 12. Mr. Hossain, ld. Counsel for the ED has brought to the notice of the Court various orders and judgments dealing with Section 24 and the 2nd schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Ld. Counsel relies on the following decisions: (a) In Adarsh Sharma (supra) ld. Single Judge of this Court held that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) is an organisation which would be covered by Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Subsequently, in Dr. Neelam Bhalla v. Union of India [LPA 229 of 2014, dated 11-3-2014] ld. Division Bench of this Court again observed the same for Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). (b) This legal position has also been affirmed in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [WPC 5521 of 2016, dated 23-8-2017] wherein the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 has been interpreted and it has been held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sustained and is hereby quashed. 5. However, in my view, if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act. It appears that there is a litigation going on in Rajasthan High Court between the respondent and Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas. It also appears that the respondent has a serious doubt as to whether Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, who was reported to have died on 3-9-2009, has actually died or not. The Intelligence Bureau could possibly help in such matters by providing information as to whether Dr. Vyas had actually left India on 10-10-2009 for Auckland on flight No CX708. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, I direct the Intelligence Bureau to consider the request made by the respondent on administrative side and take an appropriate decision thereon within four weeks from today. It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act. That being the position, the provisions with regard to penalty under section 20 of the said Act would also not apply." 19. This legal position has also been affirmed by another ld. Single Judge of this Court in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau (supra) wherein the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 has been interpreted and it has been held that except in the case of corruption and human rights violations, the information of these exempted organisations cannot be disclosed. 20. In CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement (supra) it has been held that ED is covered by Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the information relating to FEMA violation has been outside the proviso as well. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below: "6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. ......" 17. This Court is of the opinion that the expression 'human rights' cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of the accused alone. Human rights have been used for a variety of purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to determining the end of hunger and of medial neglect. In fact, the human rights are both progressive and transformative. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NON-SUPPLY OF THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION AS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME RESPONDENT NO.2 WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AGITATE HER RIGHT TO PROMOTION. 18. It is settled law that employees have a legitimate expectation of promotion. It is not the case of the Appellant that its employees and officers cannot file legal proceedings to air their grievances with regard to service conditions and wrongful denial of promotions. The intent of service jurisprudence at the level of any establishment/organization is to promote peace and harmony and at the level of the society, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation or intelligence or covert operations carried out nationally or internationally. This Court clarifies that the respondents may be well entitled to deny information under the RTI Act, if the facts of a case so warrant. 24. Consequently in the present case, non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same respondent No. 2 would not be able to agitate her right to promotion." 22. This judgment was challenged in Central Information Commission (supra). The said SLP was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11th April, 2023 with the following directions: "It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the appellant/Directorate of Enforcement, being in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, the RTI Act shall not be applicable/applied to the said Organisation. However, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has observed that the "information sought can be said to pertaining to the human rights violations" and therefore, Section 24 of the RTI Act shall not be applicable. Though, we do not approve the reasoning given by the High court, however, taking into consideration the fact that what was sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vel or all India level, since 1990 to till date. It essentially entails information regarding basis of promotions, as on zonal level or all India level." 25. Considering the fact that the information requested is only about recruitment rules, thus bearing in mind the various judicial precedents, including the decision of this Court in titled Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya (supra) as also the recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Court is of the view that this is not a case which would involve any human rights violation and is accordingly not exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. 26. The ED is exempted under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 from disclosing the said information. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2019 passed by the CIC is set aside. 27. Insofar as W.P.(C) 5588/2019 is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the information sought in the RTI Application dated 5th April, 2017 relates to an allegation of sexual harassment by the RTI Applicant/Respondent. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the question of law open in the order dated 11th April 2023. Thus, the issue would have to be considered on a case to case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
