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>High Court Upholds CIC Decision on CBI Information Disclosure</h1> <h3>Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Central Information Commission</h3> The High Court upheld the Central Information Commission's decision directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to provide specific information ... Right to Information - Held that:- The submission of Mr. Das that the applicant seeking information under the RTI Act is required to furnish reasons for the request to the Public Information Officer is incorrect. Section 6(2) of the RTI Act clearly provides that the applicant making a request for information is not required to give any reason for seeking the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Therefore, this argument of Mr. Das is untenable. The CIC while passing the impugned order in the present case has observed that the information sought is not personal information but it pertains to individual CBI officers in respect of their public duty and therefore, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been directed to supply such information. The reluctance of the CBI to supply the requisite information is palpable. The exemption claimed under Section 8 is unjustified and has no bearing on the information required. As a last attempt to avoid furnishing the information it was argued that the CBI does not fall within the clutches of the RTI Act in view of the notification issued on 9-6-2011 amending the second schedule to the Act. This submission is without merit. The application was filed under the RTI Act before the amendment and therefore, it would not be governed by it. Issues:1. Central Bureau of Investigation's refusal to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Applicability of exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.3. Validity of the Central Information Commission's decision to direct the CBI to furnish the requested information.4. Concerns regarding jeopardizing officers and informants due to disclosure of information.Issue 1: Central Bureau of Investigation's Refusal to Provide InformationThe Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent, an Advocate, sought various information related to specific cases and activities of the CBI. The CBI initially refused the information, leading to a series of appeals and ultimately the CIC directing the CBI to provide the requested information.Issue 2: Applicability of Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI ActThe CBI argued that disclosing the requested information would jeopardize officers and informants, claiming exemptions under Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. The CIC, however, found that the exemptions did not apply to all the requested information. The CIC directed the CBI to provide certain information after redacting details that could endanger individuals or reveal confidential sources.Issue 3: Validity of the CIC's DecisionThe CIC, as the Second Appellate Authority, allowed the respondent's appeal and directed the CBI to furnish the information. The High Court analyzed the CIC's order and found it to be well-reasoned, especially regarding the information that did not fall under the exemptions specified in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Court upheld the CIC's decision to provide specific information while safeguarding sensitive details.Issue 4: Concerns Regarding Jeopardizing Officers and InformantsThe CBI contended that disclosing certain information could jeopardize ongoing proceedings and invade the privacy of officers. However, the Court noted that providing information like visitors' registers or details of complaints against officers did not inherently pose risks. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing transparency with protecting sensitive information and individuals' privacy.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the CBI's petition and confirmed the CIC's order, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the public's right to information while recognizing the need to safeguard sensitive details and individuals' privacy. The Court upheld the CIC's decision to provide specific information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act, ensuring a balanced approach between disclosure and protection of confidential information.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
