[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Bindal vs Central Information Commissioner And … on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on: 17.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 3171/2018
VINOD KUMAR BINDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Amit George, Advocate along
with Mr. Siddharth Garg and Ms.
Suparna Jain, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP, CBI along
with Mr. Aryan Rakesh and Mr.
Pankaj Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 19.12.2017, passed by respondent no. 1, i.e., the Central
Information Commission (CIC), in Appeal No. CIC/ MPERS/ A/2017/
107414/MP. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner’s second appeal
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
2. The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant, residing in New
Delhi. His name was included in a list of “Undesirable Contact Men”
(UCM) which was allegedly circulated by the CBI and subsequently
published in various newspaper clippings.
3. Thereafter, these clippings, with the CBI’s emblem on them, were
uploaded on the CBI’s official website. As per these reports, government
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
officials were cautioned against dealing with, associating with, or accepting
hospitality and gifts from individuals named in the UCM list.
4. The petitioner submits that the publication of this list has significantly
tarnished the petitioner’s professional reputation. It is submitted that he was
previously empanelled with the Income Tax Department to conduct special
audits under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act. However, since the
circulation of this list in 2005, his name has been removed from the panel,
thereby depriving him of crucial professional assignments and causing
financial losses.
5. Aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the UCM list, the petitioner
filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2016 with the Central Public
Information Officer (CPIO) of the CBI, seeking specific details regarding
his name’s presence on the list, the reasons for such inclusion, and the
procedure followed. The RTI application dated 19.07.2016 filed by the
petitioner is reproduced as under –
” Sir,
On perusal of the website portal of the CBI i.e. www.cbi.gov.in, it has
been seen that a newspaper clipping has been posted thereon showing
names of some persons as Undesirable Contact Men (UCM) allegedly
circulated by the CBI. A copy of the same as download from there is
enclosed for ready reference.
2. The name of the undersigned applicant also appears therein.
3. The applicant wants the information on the following issues:
A. Whether, is it true that any list of Undesirable Contract Men is
prepared by the CBI and for what purpose?
B. Is the said list prepared annually or after expiry of some other
period?
C. What is the period for which the said list, after is prepared, is
operative?
D. How, to whom and in what manner, the same is circulated by
the CBI?
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
E. Does the CBI puts the said list in public domain in any manner
for public information or a copy of the same is given to media for
publication as has been done in view of the enclosed newspaper
story?
F. Whether is it true that the said story published in the newspaper
and which has been put on the web portal of the CBI as per the
enclosed clipping is correct and had approval of the CBI for its
publishing?
G. Whether all stories printed by the newspaper in India having
mention of the CBI are placed on the web portal of the CBI or
selectively?
H. What are the criteria for putting newspaper clipping on the web
portal of the CBI?
I. What are the procedure/criteria adopted by the Central Bureau
of Investigation in identifying the persons under the category-
“Undesirable Contract Men”?
J. Whether are the persons whose names are included in the list of
‘Undesirable Contract Men’ ever notified by the Central Bureau of
Investigation about the reasons for inclusion of their names or of
such inclusion only any time at all?
K. What were the criteria/reasons for inclusion of the applicant’s
name in the said list of Undesirable Contract Men’, if any,
prepared and circulated by the CBI?
L. Since when the name of the applicant has been appearing in the
said list and for what reasons?
M. What are the procedure/criteria of exclusion (if at all) of the
name of any person from the said list of Undesirable Contract
Men?
N. Is the name of the applicant still appearing in the latest list of
UCM and if no, then from which date?
O. What were the factors which had been taken into consideration
to exclude my name (if at all excluded) from the said list?
P. Which is the Government law, rule, notification, direction, order
or any letter directing/desiring the CBI to prepare such list? A
copy of the same may also be provided to the applicant.
4. The applicant and his counsel should be allowed an inspection of
all the relevant record/files in the office of the CBI putting name of the
applicant in the said list and for which time, date and place may also
kindly be intimated.
5. The applicant many also be provided copies of the lists of the
UCMs prepared by the CBI since the name of the applicant has been
included therein. Necessary copying fees for obtaining the copies asW.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
requested herein may also be intimated to enable the applicant to deposit
the same.
6. Necessary postal order of Rs.10/- as prescribed fee and the
applicant form published by the CBI on its web portal for seeking such
information are enclosed.”
6. The application was initially received by the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, on 20.07.2016. However, the CPIO, Anti-Corruption Branch,
transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the
CPIO at CBI Headquarters, Delhi, on 19.08.2016. The letter dated
19.08.2016 is reproduced as under –
“Sub: Transfer of RTI application dated 19.07.2016 of Shri Vinod Kr.
Bindal, under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005- Regarding.
Please find enclosed herewith a RTI application dated 19.07.2016 of Shri
Vinod Kr. Bindal, on the subject cited above.
2. Since the matter pertains to your office, the RTI application is
being transferred u/sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for taking necessary
action at your end.
3. In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction it may please be
further transferred to the public authority to which the subject matter is
more closely connected, directly under intimation to the applicant.”
7. Subsequently, the CPIO at CBI Headquarters, vide letter dated
05.09.2016, transferred the request to the Policy Division of CBI, citing that
the subject matter pertained to policy-related matters. Letter dated
05.09.2016 is reproduced as under –
“Sub: Transfer of RTI application dated 19.07.2016 of Sh. Vinod Kumar
Bindal under Section 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Please find enclosed RTI application dated 19.07.2016 of Sh. Vinod
Kumar Bindal, R/o House No. B-2, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-
110095 addressed to the CPIO, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, as transferred to
this office by Shri Sanjeev Gautam, CPIO/HOB, CBI, ACB, New Delhi
vide his letter dated 19.08.2016, received in this office on 23.08.2016 for
necessary action. Applicant sought the information regarding theW.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
genuineness, authenticity and criteria for preparing the list of
Undesirable Contract (UCM) available on Website of the CBI i.e.
www.cbi.gov.in allegedly prepared and circulated by the CBI to caution
the government official against dealing with these 23 people/lobbyists,
including the name of the applicant which also appears therein. (Copy
enclosed).
The perusal of the instant RTI application reveals that the subject matter
of information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the office.
Moreover, it is closely connected with the Policy Division of CBI. Hence,
the instant reference is being transferred to the concerned CPIO/AIG
(P), Policy Division, CBI, North-Block, New Delhi under the provision of
Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 for necessary action.
Accordingly, it is requested that a suitable reply, as deemed fit, may be
given to the applicant. In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, the
application may be further transferred to the concerned public authority
directly to which the subject matter is more closely connected under
intimation to the applicant.
8. On 16.09.2016, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Policy
Division), who also functions as the CPIO, rejected the RTI application on
the ground that the CBI is exempt from disclosing information by virtue of
Section 24(1)1 of RTI Act. The rejection was based on a government
notification dated 09.06.2011, which included the CBI in the Second
Schedule of the RTI Act, thereby exempting it from disclosure obligations,
except in matters related to allegations of corruption and human rights
violations. Reply, dated 16.09.2016 to the RTI application, is reproduced as
under –
1
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:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human
rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission,
and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five
days from the date of the receipt of request.
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
“Sub: Request for information under Right to Information Act-2005.
Please refer to your RTI application dated 19.07.2016, received in this
office on 07.09.2016, on the subject cited above.
2. It is to inform that vide notification No. F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated
09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India issued u/s 24 of 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 RTI Act. As such, information asked by you is not covered
under the RTI Act.
3. Appeal against this reply can be made to the Dy. Insp. General of
Police (Policy), CBI, Room No. 27, North Block, New Delhi within 30
days from the datge of the receipt of this letter.”
9. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, the petitioner filed a First
Appeal on 01.10.2016, arguing that since the information sought was related
to allegations of corruption, it was not exempt under Section 24 of the RTI
Act.
10. However, on 03.11.2016, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), CBI
Policy Division, dismissed the appeal, upholding the initial rejection. The
FAA relied upon the pendency of case titled CPIO CBI vs. C.J. Karira
(W.P. (C) No. 7439/2012), before the High Court and, on that basis, took the
view that the information sought could not be disclosed. Order dated
03.11.2016 passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is reproduced as
under –
“The appellant Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal has filed an appeal dated
01.10.2016 against the reply of AIG(P)&CPIO, Policy Division, sent vide
letter No, 21/1/(123)/2016.PD/2585 dated 16.09.2016 in response to his
RTI application dated 19.07.2016. The appeal was received in the office
of the undersigned on 06.10.2016.
2. I have gone through the RTI application dated 19.07.2016 received in
the office of AIG (P) & CPIQ, CBI Policy Division on 07.09.a0l6 reply
given by AIG (P) & CPIO, CBI, Policy Division vide letter No.21/W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
1(123)/ 2016-PD/ 2585 dated 15.09.2016 and Appeal dated 01.10.2016
of the Appellant.
3. It has been observed that AIG(P) & CPIO, CBI, Policy Division vide
letter No.21/ 1(123)/ 2016-PD/ 2585 dated 16.09.2016 has informed that
as per Notification No. F.1/3/2011-1R dated 9.6.2011 of the Govt. of
India issued u/s 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 provision of Section 24 of RTI Act. It
was further informed that as such information asked by Applicant was
not covered under RTI Act, 2005.
4. The Appellant in his first appeal has submitted that the information
desired is not covered by the said exemption as it pertains to an
allegation of corruption and for which the said section 24 of the RTI Act
is not applicable and has suggested that an allegation of probable
corruption has been made against him.
5. AWP. (C) 7439/2012 CPIO/CBI Vs. C.J. Karira is pending in the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi wherein CBl has challenged
the order of Central Information Commission dated 31.10.2012 for
providing information sought by the applicant related to allegations of
corruption against various public servants. The Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi vide order dated 30.11.2012 had stayed the operation of impugned
order dated 31.10.2012 The matter is sub-judice.
6. After examination of all the documents/records produced, the
undersigned is of the view that the reply given by AIG (P) & CPIO, CBI,
Policy Division vide letter dated 16.09.2016 is in accordance with the
provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and Notification No. F. No. 1/3/2011-IR
dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India issued u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.
7. The appeal dated Nil is accordingly disposed of.
8. The Second appeal against the decision shall lie with the Central
Information Commission, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 within ninety days from the date
of issue of this order.”
11. Following the dismissal of the First Appeal, the petitioner filed a
Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) within the
prescribed period under the RTI Act. The appeal was registered as Appeal
No. CIC/MPERS/A/2017/107414/MP. The petitioner reiterated hisW.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
arguments that the requested information was linked to allegations of
corruption and, therefore, did not fall under the exemption of Section 24 of
the RTI Act.
12. On 19.12.2017, the CIC dismissed the appeal, stating that the
petitioner’s reliance on newspaper clippings was insufficient evidence to
establish allegations of corruption. Order dated 19.12.2017 is reproduced as
under –
“ORDER
Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, the appellant, sought certain information
regarding posting of a newspaper clipping publishing thing names of
certain persons, including that of the appellant as ‘Undesirable Contact
Men’ by CBI on its website www.cbl.oov.in and which was allegedly
circulated by CBI. The appellant sought to know whether the CBI did
prepare any such list of “Undesirable Contact Men as well as the purpose
of preparing such list, whether the list was prepared annually, time period
till which the list in question was operative; how the list was circulated
and the manner of circulation; whether the list was put in public domain
by CBI; whether the newspaper clipping regarding list of “Undesirable
Contact Men’ was true; etc., through various sub-points. In addition to the
above, the appellant also sought inspection of relevant records/files in the
CBI’s office regarding publication of name of the appellant in
‘Undesirable Contact Men List and copies of lists of UCMS prepared by
CBI in the past.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), HoB, Anti-Corruption
Branch, CBI, transferred the appellant’s RTI application u/s 6(3) to the
CPIO-cum-HoB, СВІ (HQ), Delhi, for responding to the appellant
directly. The SP-cum-CPIO (HQ), on perusal of the appellant’s RTI
application intimated him that the subject matter was closely connected
with the Policy Division of CBI and therefore, transferred the appellant’s
RTI application u/s 6(3) to the CPIO/AIG (P). Policy Division, CDI, North
Block, New Delhi for necessary action. The CPIO/AIG (P) Informed and
the appellant that the CBI was placed at Sl. No. 23 under the Second
Schedule to the RTI Act, the RTI Act, 2005 and the Act was not applicable
to the CBI and hence, claimed exemption from disclosure of the requisite
Information. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response,
filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that the
proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly stated thatW.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
information could not be denied to the applicant if it pertained to
allegations of corruption. Since an allegation of probable corruption had
been made against the appellant by including his name in the alleged
UCM List which was prepared and circulated by CBI, information must be
provided in the interest of natural justice. The appellant, therefore,
requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information to
the appellant. The FAA, while upholding the decision of the CPIO
informed the appellant that CBI had already challenged the order dated
31.10.2012 of CIC before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court whereby CIC had
directed CBI to provide information related to allegations of corruption
against various public servants and the High Court had stayed the
impugned decision. Aggrieved with the denial of requested information by
FAA, the appellant approached the Commission reiterating his request for
providing the information sought by him in his RTI application as CBI
must furnish information relating to the appellant.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated
that according to a newspaper clipping of Pioneer newspaper dated
11.6.2012 CBI had prepared and published a list of ‘Undesirable Contact
Men’ on its website which also included the appellant’s name. As per the
list, CBI had blacklisted certain persons and advised the government to
not to deal with such “unscrupulous” persons or allot any official work to
those whose names appeared in the list as they were involved in corruption
matters. The appellant added that he was a qualified and practicing
Chartered Accountant since 1978 who was there on the Income Tax panel.
However, after the publication of the list, his name was struck off from the
panel based on inclusion of his name in the UCM list which was published
in newspapers since 2005. Further, the CBI published the list in question
on its website without informing the appellant or issuing any disclaimer
and putting up such information on its website shows CBI’s
acknowledgment. The appellant alleged that CBI had caused considerable
harm to his reputation and defamed him and cited decisions of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CPIO, CBI vs. CJ Karira [W.P.(C)
7439/2012, decision dated 7.9.2017] and CPIO, intelligence Bureau vs.
Sanjiv Chaturvedi [W.P.(C) 5521/2016) categorically observing that if the
Information sought from exempt intelligence and security organizations
(CBI, in this case) pertained to allegations of corruption and human rights
violation it would not be excluded u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. The respondents denied the allegations made by the appellant
stating that the appellant was merely relying on a newspaper clipping
while, they had verified it with their Chief Information Officer (CIO) and
Special Unit who was Official spokesman of the organization and
responsible for preparation of press release and releasing the same to the
Press. The CIO denied having given any such information toW.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
newspaper/media. In fact, the appellant was presuming that his name was
published in the list in question as it was a highly secret document and the
same had not been disclosed to media at all. Moreover, as per the
newspaper clipping enclosed by the appellant, UCM list was published
only in 2012. The respondents added that CBI was an exempt organization
as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 to which the provisions of the
RTI Act, 2005 were not applicable and CBI had already challenged the
decisions above given by Delhi High Court before the Division Bench
which was listed for hearing on 12th December, 2017 in LPA 711/2017.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records,
the Commission observes that the appellant has merely relied on a
newspaper clipping alleging and presuming that his name was published
in a so called ‘Undesirable Contact Men List, prepared and circulated by
CBI which was also put up by the respondent authority on its website. The
appellant failed to corroborate his claim with any compelling evidence
that the list was circulated by CBI even when the respondent categorically
stated during the hearing that it was a highly confidential document and
they had verified it with their CIO that no such list was given to media by
CBI. The Commission cannot direct the respondent authority to disclose
any information relating to said UCM List based on presumptions of the
appellant regarding alleged corruption. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in its decision dated 16/09/2014 (W.P. (CRL.) No. 807 of 2014 – Manohar
Lal Sharma vs. CBI & Ors has held as under.
“7. We may at the outset point out that the writ petition has been
filed purely on the basis of the newspaper reports without
producing any material to substantiate the authenticity of the
contents of the said reports.
8. In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported
in (1988) 3 SCC 319, the Supreme Court while examining the issue
of admissibility of newspaper report observed as follows:
“…………. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a
news Item being in the nature of hearing secondary evidence,
unless proved by evidence allunde. A report in a newspaper is only
hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of, the documents
referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an
allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness
attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper
report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein.”
10. It is clear from the above noticed settled legal position that the
petitioner is bound to plead his case and produce sufficient
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition.
Admittedly, no such effort has been made by the petitioner herein.”
Thus, mere allegation of corruption made by the appellant without
sufficient evidence to substantiate the averment cannot be accepted. The
Commission would, however, like to add that operation of the judgment
dated 7.9.2017 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CPIO, CBI vs. CJ Karira
(supra) has not been stayed by the Division Bench in LPA 711/2017 so far
and until the single bench decision is stayed, it shall remain valid and
binding on the parties to the case. No further intervention is, therefore,
called for in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.”
13. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the CIC, the petitioner
has filed the present petition.
14. The petitioner contends that his name was arbitrarily included in the
UCM list without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, in blatant
violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the
petitioner’s primary grievance was qua a newspaper report that allegedly
mentioned his name in the UCM list. This report was subsequently endorsed
by respondent no. 1 by republishing it on the official website of the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thereby giving it official legitimacy. The
petitioner specifically relies on the fact that the newspaper clipping was
directly sourced from the CBI’s website, with its emblem clearly displayed,
which amounts to an official endorsement of the same.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner’s case is excluded from the bar of
disclosure under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. It is pointed out that the
proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act clearly contemplates that information
pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not
be exempt from disclosure. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not seek to invoke the
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
exemption regarding allegation of corruption, but rather relies on the human
rights violation exception in the present case.
16. The petitioner submits that the publication of the newspaper clipping
on the website of the CBI in the manner aforesaid, has severely tarnished his
reputation in society, causing irreparable harm to his dignity and
professional standing. The unwarranted inclusion of his name in the UCM
list has adversely impacted his career, depriving him of professional
opportunities.
17. It is contended that since the inclusion of his name in the UCM list
has subjected him to public scrutiny and professional ostracization without
due process, it constitutes an infringement of his human rights and dignity.
18. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has relied upon CPIO CBI
v. C.J. Karira, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10475 and Union of India v. Central
Information Commission and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 824.
19. On the other hand the respondent no.1 submits that the CBI is placed
under Serial No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act. This
categorization grants CBI a general exemption from the applicability of the
RTI Act, as per Section 24 of the RTI Act.
20. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish before the
Appellate Authorities that the information he sought falls within the
exceptions listed in Section 24(1). It is pointed that the CIC, in its Order
dated 19.12.2017, observed that the petitioner’s allegations of corruption
lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims.
21. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim regarding the
inclusion of his name in a list of “undesirable contact persons” on the CBI
portal is unsubstantiated. The list in question was published as part of
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
general public information on the CBI website, containing information about
individuals who may be of concern to government officials.
22. At the outset, it may be apposite to examine the statutory prescription
contained in Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, which reads as under –
“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:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in
respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information
shall only be provided after the approval of the Central
Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained
in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five
days from the date of the receipt of request.”
23. It is evident that while Section 24(1) generally exempts intelligence
and security organizations (including CBI as per schedule two of the RTI
Act) from the purview of the RTI Act; the proviso thereof explicitly states
that information related to allegations of corruption and human rights
violations shall not be excluded from disclosure.
24. Prima facia, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument that
the publication of his name, in the manner aforesaid, has resulted in a
violation of human rights as the same has harmed his dignity and
professional standing.
25. The Petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Central Information
Commission and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 824, wherein, while
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
determining the scope of the human rights exemption under the RTI Act, it
has been observed that “the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a
narrow or pedantic meaning. Human Rights are both progressive and
transformative.”
26. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under –
“14. Undoubtedly, the Appellant is an intelligence and security
organization specified in Second Schedule of RTI Act and is exempt from
the purview of RTI Act except when the information pertains to allegation
of corruption and human rights violation. Consequently, the submission
made by Mr. Amit Mahajan is correct that the Appellant cannot be called
upon to disclose information under the provisions of RTI Act except when
the information sought pertains to the allegations of corruption and
human rights violation.
THE EXPRESSION ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’ CANNOT BE GIVEN A
NARROW OR PEDANTIC MEANING. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BOTH
PROGRESSIVE AND TRANSFORMATIVE.
15. Accordingly, the issue that arises for consideration in the present
case is whether the information sought for by the respondent falls within
the expression ‘human rights’.
16. Though, the term ‘human rights’ has not been defined in the RTI Act,
yet it has been defined in the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 (in
short ‘1993 Act’). Section 2(1)(d) of the 1993 Act provides for definition
of the term ‘human rights’ which reads as under:
‘2. Definitions – (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d) “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and
dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in
the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. ……”
17. This Court is of the opinion that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot
be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of
the accused alone. Human rights have been used for a variety of
purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to
determining the end of hunger and of medial neglect. In fact, the human
rights are both progressive and transformative.”
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
27. Furthermore, in response to a specific query raised by this Court,
learned counsel for the respondent has conceded that the CBI, from time to
time, compiles and maintains UCM lists. There is no dispute that the
concerned newspaper clipping (showing names of some persons as UCM),
was uploaded on the CBI’s official website, thereby imparting an official
tinge to the same.
28. Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, it appears
that the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act on the
ground of violation of the petitioner’s human rights, was neither raised by
the petitioner before the appellate authority nor examined by the authority
while rendering the impugned order. In view thereof, the Court deems it
appropriate to remand the matter to the Central Information Commission
(CIC) for a fresh determination. The CIC is directed to reconsider the
matter, specifically considering the aspect of human rights violation/s raised
by the petitioner and determining whether the information sought falls
within the exception carried out in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI
Act.
29. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
APRIL 17, 2025/sv
W.P.(C) 3171/2018 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:21.04.2025
20:12:20
[ad_2]
Source link