In CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/125865- CIC- RTI Act: CBI is an exempted organisation under  statutory provision, Authority not entitled to disclose information vis-a-vis guidelines pertaining to disproportionate assets case: Central Information Commission while upholding order of CPIO
Saroj Punhani, Information Commissioner [30-05-2023]

Read Order : Veereaswamy R v CPIO

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 13, 2023: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has denied the second appeal which had impugned an order passed by the First Appellate Authority, in relation to the allegation against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of not following the internal circular stating new guidelines which were issued for probing cases regarding disproportionate assets (DA) cases. The CIC upheld the observation made by the Centre Public Information Officers (CPIO) which had stated that the CBI fell under the SI. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act and being an exempted organisation under the statutory provision, the said information could not be disclosed to the appellant.

In the matter at hand, the appellant had filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2022 seeking a copy of the new guidelines issued for probing cases regarding DA cases, information which was demanded in reference to a report published in the Economic Times on 05.04.2015. The said report had stated that CBI had issued new guidelines for probing cases regarding DA cases, a move that had come after the setbacks that the agency had faced in high-profile cases involving former Uttar Pradesh Chief Ministers Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati.

It was averred that the CPIO had furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 04.03.2022 stating the copy of the document sought by the appellant vide his RTI application, was an internal circular of CBI, which was meant for the officers of the organisation. It was further stated that “It is also to be informed that vide Notification F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, issued ids 24 of the RTI Act 2005. the Central Bureau of Investigation has been put at SI. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the of the said Act.” Accordingly the RTI application was disposed of.

It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the CBI had filed a DA Case against him. However, upon pursuing the chargesheet, it brought out the fact that the chargesheet compiled and filed by CBI was without adhering to the various guidelines issued by CBI itself. The said omission had put him in the most disadvantageous position, in defending himself in the court. For example, the computation of Income and expenditure of the Charged Officer and his dependent family members, during the Check Period, had not been adhered to. In view of the same, either due to deliberate act or ignorance of the Investigating Officer, put the Charged Officials in a piquant situation.

It was further submitted that Notification F.No.1/3/2011 dated 09.06.2011 of the Government of India, issued under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), putting CBI at Sl.No.23 of the Second Schedule to RTI Act, did not empower CBI to deny to provide the circulars relating to policy decisions.

The CPIO submitted that the appellant was referring to internal guidelines of CBI which were circulated within the CBI agencies for conducting required course of action in DA cases. He further submitted that being an exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the said information could not be disclosed to the appellant. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had filed First Appeal which upheld the order of CPIO. Accordingly, the appellant approached the Commission with the present second appeal.

The Commission observed that the reply provided by the CPIO was as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the arguments of the appellant during the hearing did not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, rather the appellant was merely expressing conjecture that in his DA case, the CBI had not followed proper guidelines.

The Commission navigated through Section 24 of the RTI Act and found no reason to invoke the proviso to allow the disclosure of information, if any.

The relevant provision stated that “24. Act not to apply to certain organisations.—

1. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:…”

In this context, the Commission was also guided by a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla v. Union Of India which had held that “4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption….”

In view thereof, the Court was of the view that no action was warranted in the matter and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.