Justify denial of info; don’t merely cite exemption clause: CIC to CBI
[ad_1]
Section 8(1)(h) of the RIT Act permits a public authority to withhold info, the disclosure of which might impede the method of an investigation or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the CBI to present a justification for denial of info on the bottom that the disclosure would possibly impede an ongoing investigation or the prosecution of an accused and never merely cite the related clause in its RTI response.
Also Read | CIC was not consulted on RTI modification Act
Information Commissioner Vanaja N Sarna directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to present a cogent clarification whereas citing the exemption clause — part 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act — on how a disclosure of info would adversely have an effect on an investigation or prosecution.
Section 8(1)(h) permits a public authority to withhold info, the disclosure of which might impede the method of an investigation or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The Delhi High Court, within the Bhagat Singh case, had clearly held that merely citing the exemption clause will not be sufficient and a public authority should justify how a disclosure of info would appeal to the part as disclosure was the rule whereas withholding info was an exception.
Ms. Sarna was listening to the case of an RTI applicant, who had sought to know the standing of a preliminary enquiry by the CBI within the MSME Development Institute in Chennai.
The CBI, in a quantity of circumstances, has denied the knowledge by merely citing the part, with out giving any justification how a disclosure of the knowledge would impede its investigation or prosecution.
“The Commission observes upon a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO had merely invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without providing any justification as to what inquiry was pending as on the date of their reply or as to how the disclosure of the information would have impeded the process of the inquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders,” Ms. Sarna famous.
She agreed with the petitioner, S Harish Kumar, that the disclosure of the standing and end result of the case as out there on the related time wouldn’t have impeded the method of the averred inquiry by any measure.
“Pertinently so, the representative of the CPIO also failed to provide any substantial submissions regarding the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act during the hearing,” Ms. Sarna stated.
She directed the CBI CPIO to present a revised reply to Kumar, incorporating a “cogent explanation” justifying the applicability of part 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act with respect to the knowledge sought within the utility.
“In addition to this, the CPIO is directed to provide the available information regarding the status and outcome of the case as referred to in the RTI application…,” Ms. Sarna stated.
[ad_2]
