Proviso to Section 24 requires disclosure of allegations of corruption or human rights violations despite Section 24(1) exclusion

HC held that the proviso to Section 24 applies to any information that pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations, regardless of whether the information relates to an exempt intelligence/security organization or an officer thereof. Therefore the exclusion for intelligence agencies under Section 24(1) does not bar disclosure of such allegations. The information sought was held to fall within this proviso and must be supplied. Petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Exemption of Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports from disclosure.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
4. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 24 concerning allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
5. The relevance of previous judgments cited by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) challenged the CIC's order directing the disclosure of an IB report under the RTI Act. The CPIO argued that Section 24 exempts intelligence and security organizations, including the IB, from the Act's purview. However, the CIC held that the information sought pertained to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, which are exceptions to this exemption under the proviso to Section 24.

2. Exemption of Intelligence Bureau (IB) Reports from Disclosure:
The CPIO contended that the IB report was exempt from disclosure under Section 24 of the Act, which lists the IB as an exempt organization. The CIC, however, directed the disclosure, reasoning that the report did not pertain to the core functioning of security or intelligence and thus did not fall under the exemption.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Central Information Commission (CIC):
The petitioner argued that the CIC's order was without jurisdiction, as Section 24 of the Act exempts the IB and its information from disclosure. The CIC, on the other hand, asserted its authority to order disclosure based on the proviso to Section 24, which allows for the release of information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

4. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 24 Concerning Allegations of Corruption and Human Rights Violations:
The key issue was whether the proviso to Section 24 applies only to allegations within the IB or also to information provided by the IB concerning other organizations. The court interpreted the proviso broadly, stating that it applies to any information related to corruption and human rights violations, regardless of whether it pertains to the IB or other entities. The court emphasized that the proviso should be read in conjunction with the preceding phrase, "or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government," thus covering all such information.

5. The Relevance of Previous Judgments Cited by the Petitioner:
The petitioner relied on previous judgments, including the case of ADARSH SHARMA, to argue that the exception in the proviso to Section 24 applies only to allegations within the IB. The court distinguished these cases, noting that they did not involve allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The court concluded that the CIC's order was consistent with the Act's objectives of promoting transparency and accountability.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the CIC's order, stating that the information sought by the respondent fell within the exceptions to the exclusion clause in Section 24 and was thus liable to be disclosed. The petition was dismissed, affirming the CIC's authority to order the disclosure of information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, even if it involved exempt organizations like the IB. No costs were awarded.

---