Ensuring Appellant Hearing Rights in RTI Matters: Public Interest Disclosure of Vigilance Clearance

The Central Information Commission emphasized the importance of providing a hearing opportunity to an Appellant upon request, even though RTI rules do not specify the procedure in detail. Regarding the disclosure of information under an RTI application regarding vigilance clearance, the Commission ruled that if officers received vigilance clearance while facing inquiries, it should be disclosed in the public interest. The CPIO was directed to review records and disclose relevant information within 15 working days if vigilance clearance was granted during pending inquiries, highlighting the significance of public interest and transparency in such matters.

---

---

Issues:
1. Failure to provide opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority.
2. Disclosure of information under RTI application regarding vigilance clearance.

Issue 1: Failure to provide opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority

The Appellant had sought information and permission to inspect files related to pending cases of complaint, vigilance cases, and cases of vigilance clearance. The CPIO allowed file inspection but refused to provide remaining information citing it as personal and non-disclosable based on a Supreme Court decision. The Appellant appealed, requesting a personal hearing, which the Appellate Authority did not grant. During the hearing, the Appellant highlighted the lack of a hearing opportunity and submitted instances where the Appellate Authority did not provide personal hearings as per RTI information from the CVC. The Central Information Commission emphasized that the Appellate Authority should grant a hearing if requested by the Appellant, even though RTI rules do not specify the procedure in detail.

Issue 2: Disclosure of information under RTI application regarding vigilance clearance

The Appellant argued that disclosing information about vigilance clearance for three IRS officers, despite facing serious charges, would serve public interest by exposing corruption. The Respondents contended that the information was personal and should not be disclosed. The Commission considered the Supreme Court decision, stating that such information could be revealed in the public interest. They determined that if the officers received vigilance clearance while facing inquiries, it should be disclosed to serve a larger public interest. The CPIO was directed to review records of the officers and disclose relevant information within 15 working days if vigilance clearance was granted during pending inquiries. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of public interest in disclosure.

This judgment addressed the failure to provide a hearing opportunity by the Appellate Authority and the disclosure of information under an RTI application regarding vigilance clearance, emphasizing the significance of public interest in disclosure and the need for transparency in such matters.

---