2014 (1) TMI 1369 - Commission - Indian Laws

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 ... Request for information - Inspection of documents - Partial information provided - Remaining information declined being personal information - Held that:- while, ordinarily, such information should be considered to be personal in nature, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case, it could be disclosed in larger public interest as held by the Supreme Court itself. All we need to decide is whether the information is likely to serve any larger public interest or not. In the present case, if what the Appellant has submitted is true, namely, that vigilance clearance has been granted to all or some of these officers by the CVC while various complaints of the vigilance nature were either pending or under enquiry against them, then, it would be absolutely necessary that this information should be disclosed because that would serve a larger public interest by exposing what these officers are like in reality. If some officers facing various kinds of enquiry for their acts of omission or corruption end up getting further appointments or career promotion, it cannot be in the interest of the society. Although the respondent very categorically asserted that it was not the CVC practice to grant vigilance clearance to officers facing enquiries, even then, in view of the submissions made by the Appellant, we would like the CPIO to revisit the records in respect of all these three officers and to find out if, indeed, vigilance clearance had been granted while enquiries are pending either in the CVC or elsewhere. If he finds any truth in this claim, then he must disclose the desired information in totality. We direct the CPIO to complete this exercise within 15 working days of receiving this order and to communicate to the Appellant either the information or his finding - Decided in favour of Appellant. 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 AuthorityThe 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 clearanceThe 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.