Court clarifies RTI Act exemptions for intelligence agencies, defines human rights violations. Balancing transparency and privacy.

The Court upheld the exemption of intelligence and security organizations from disclosing information under the RTI Act, except in cases of corruption or human rights violations. It clarified the definition of "human rights" as encompassing life, liberty, equality, and dignity. Non-supply of requested information was deemed a human rights violation hindering the right to promotion. Third-party promotion details were protected from disclosure, but specific information regarding the respondent's promotion process was ordered to be provided. The appeal was resolved with directions to balance transparency and privacy concerns under the RTI Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the RTI Act to intelligence and security organizations.
2. Interpretation of the term "human rights" under the RTI Act.
3. Whether the non-supply of information/documentation constitutes a human rights violation.
4. Disclosure of information pertaining to third-party promotions under the RTI Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the RTI Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations:
The appellant argued that as an intelligence and security organization specified in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, it is exempt from the purview of the Act except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The Court upheld this view, citing Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, which provides immunity to such organizations from disclosing information unless it pertains to corruption or human rights violations. This was supported by the Division Bench decision in *Esab India Limited v. Special Director of Enforcement & Ors.*, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24 of the RTI Act.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Human Rights":
The Court examined whether the information sought by the respondent falls within the scope of "human rights." The term "human rights" is defined in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants. The Court emphasized that human rights should not be given a narrow or pedantic meaning and are both progressive and transformative.

3. Non-Supply of Information as a Human Rights Violation:
The Court held that the non-supply of the information/documents requested by the respondent constitutes a human rights violation because it impedes her ability to agitate her right to promotion. The Court reasoned that employees have a legitimate expectation of promotion and should be able to agitate their grievances before judicial forums. The RTI Act serves as a tool to facilitate this process, promoting transparency and accountability in public authorities.

4. Disclosure of Information Pertaining to Third-Party Promotions:
The Court concluded that information pertaining to proposals for the promotion of third parties cannot be provided to the respondent in view of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, which protect third-party information from disclosure. However, the Court directed the appellant to provide copies of all seniority lists in respect of LDCs from 1991 to date, as well as copies of the proposal for the respondent's promotion placed before the DPC, including Minutes of the Meetings and promotion/rejection orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC.

Conclusion:
The present appeal was disposed of with the direction to the appellant to provide specific information to the respondent while protecting third-party information from disclosure. The Court clarified the applicability of the RTI Act to intelligence and security organizations and emphasized the broad and transformative nature of human rights.

---