TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission Upholds Non-Disclosure of Suspected Officials' Info under RTI Act</h1> <h3>SR. SAWANT Versus DIR. GENERAL OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> SR. SAWANT Versus DIR. GENERAL OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & C. EX., NEW DELHI - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 197 (CIC) Issues:Disclosure of information regarding officials suspected of corrupt practices and inclusion in the 'Agreed List'; Confidentiality of 'Agreed List' under RTI Act; Public interest in disclosure of information; Justification for non-disclosure by the CPIO and Appellate Authority; Review of 'Agreed List' process and purpose; Relationship between promotions/placements and inclusion in the 'Agreed List'; Need for objectivity and transparency in promotions.Analysis:The appellant sought information on Group-A officers included in the 'Agreed List' for specific years and details of promotions/appointments while on the list. The CPIO denied the request citing confidentiality under RTI Act sections 8(l)(h) and (l)(j). The Appellate Authority upheld the denial, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the list for surveillance and anti-corruption efforts.The issue raised involves the disclosure of information about officials under suspicion of corruption, which is deemed to be of significant public interest. The Commission conducted a hearing where the purpose and process of the 'Agreed List' were explained by the respondents. It was highlighted that inclusion in the list does not imply guilt, with only a minority facing charges post-investigation.The Commission's decision recognized the 'Agreed List' as a tool for discreetly monitoring suspected officials to combat corruption. Disclosure was deemed detrimental to surveillance efforts, justifying the non-disclosure under RTI Act. However, concerns were raised about the contradiction in promoting officials under surveillance for corrupt practices.Emphasizing the need for objectivity and transparency in promotions, the Commission directed the Appellate Authority to disclose information on officers promoted while under surveillance in past years, excluding the ongoing year. This decision aimed to balance anti-corruption efforts with the need for accountability and integrity in promotions.The judgment underscores the delicate balance between surveillance for corruption prevention and rewarding officials, highlighting the importance of transparency in promotions to foster a corruption-free environment. The directive for disclosure reflects the Commission's commitment to upholding accountability while respecting the sensitive nature of surveillance activities.
TaxTMI 