New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the CBI in Jammu to file a revised reply within 15 days to an RTI applicant, who sought to know the status of his complaint, seeking registration of an FIR against former Deputy Chief Minister Nirmal Singh. . and others over the alleged illegal construction of a bungalow near the Army’s ammunition depot here.
Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani, while disposing of the second appeal filed by advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, held that the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), CBI had erroneously claimed exemption from providing information in the case.
It was noted that the CPIO had stated during the hearing that the complaint has to be closed at the end of the CBI as the High Court had already seized the matter and this information could not be provided earlier as the RTI application was an was filed within a month. Filing of complaint which was in various stages of processing.
Therefore, the CIC directed the CPIO and the Superintendent of Police, CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Jammu to provide a revised reply to the appellant explaining the present status and the action taken on his complaint.
In his complaint filed on September 21, 2020, Ahmed had sought registration of an FIR against Singh, a senior BJP leader, his wife Mamta Singh and officials of the Jammu and Kashmir government under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. . Facilitated construction of bungalow in village Ban-Panjgren, Jammu in violation of Defense Act read with notification dated 7th August 2015.
Considering the matter, since proper reply was not provided to the appellant by the CPIO on the original instance, now that the action on the average complaint has been completed, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant. Punhani in his order said that the present status and action taken on the complaint mentioned in the RTI application.
He said that within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, the information would be made available to the appellant free of cost by giving proper information to the Commission.
The CIC issued the order after hearing the second appeal filed by Ahmed as earlier the concerned CBI officers had rejected the RTI application dated October 19, 2020 on the ground that the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI. ) has been exempted. Act, 2005 and onwards the CBI has been included in the list of Intelligence and Security Organizations specified in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005.
Under section 8(1)(h), information which may impede the process of investigation or the process of arrest or prosecution of offenders is exempted from disclosure.
Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act exempts intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule from disclosure of information, except when it relates to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
After denying the information, the complainant filed an appeal under the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority, which on December 15, 2020, dismissed the same and upheld the order of CPIO, CBI.
The information seeker filed a second appeal before the CIC on December 17, 2020.
He argued that since the information sought was about alleged corruption and abuse of official position by the officers in allowing illegal construction near the ammunition depot of the Army, the CBI’s action in denial of information in corruption cases was inappropriate.
A lengthy hearing of the matter was conducted by the Information Commissioner through audio conference, in which both advocate Ahmed and the CBI made their respective arguments.
The bench observed that even though the information sought in the RTI application clearly pertains to allegations of corruption, Section 24 of the RTI Act was wrongly invoked to claim exemption from providing information by the CBI.
On a query by the commission, the order said, the CPIO did not deny the allegations of corruption related to the case.
Nevertheless he said that the complaint was examined by the competent authority and it was concluded that since the matter is pending before the concerned High Court, the complaint has to be closed at the end of the CBI as the court has already seized the matter. Was.
PTI
