Chapter IV

The State Information Commission

Section 15: Constitution of State Information

Commission
(1) Every State Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, constitute a body to be known as the ……… (name of the
State) Information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on,
and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.

(2) The State Information Commission shall consist of—

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and (b) such number
of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be
deemed necessary.

(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State

Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on
the recommendation of a committee consisting of—

(i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;

(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and

(iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister

Explanation.—For the purposes of removal of doubts, it is hereby

declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative
Assembly has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single
largest group in opposition of the Government in the Legislative
Assembly shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.

(4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the

affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State
Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the State
Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do
all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the State
Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to
directions by any other authority under this Act.

(5) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State

Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public
life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and
technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or
administration and governance.

(6) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the
Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or
hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or
carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

(7) The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at

such place in the State as the State Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify and the State Information Commission
may, with the previous approval of the State Government, establish
offices at other places in the State.

Section 16: Term of office and conditions of service

(1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a
term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office
and shall not be eligible for reappointment:

Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold

office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.

(2) Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term
of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he
attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall not
be eligible for reappointment as such State Information
Commissioner:
Provided that every State Information Commissioner shall, on
vacating his office under this sub-section, be eligible for appointment
as the State Chief Information Commissioner in the manner specified
in sub-section (3) of section 15:

Provided further that where the State Information Commissioner is

appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, his term of
office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the State
Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information
Commissioner.

(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

Commissioner, other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath
or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First
Schedule.

(4) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed
to the Governor, resign from his office:

Provided that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State

Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified
under section 17.

(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and
conditions of service of—

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as

that of an Election Commissioner;

(b) the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of

the Chief Secretary to the State Government:

Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State

Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in
receipt of a pension, other than a disability or wound pension, in
respect of any previous service under the Government of India or
under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service
as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information
Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension
including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension
equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension
equivalent of retirement gratuity:

Provided further that where the State Chief Information

Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if, at the time of
his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any
previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under
any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or
controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his
salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information
Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner shall be
reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement
benefits:

Provided also that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of

service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State
Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage
after their appointment.

(6) The State Government shall provide the State Chief Information
Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners with such
officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient
performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and
allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the
officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act
shall be such as may be prescribed.

Section 17: Removal of State Chief Information

Commissioner or State Information Commissioner
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief
Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall
be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the
ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme
Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry,
reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State
Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such
ground be removed.

(2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary
prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief
Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in
respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court
under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt
of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the

Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief
Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a
State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information
Commissioner, as the case may be,—

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the

Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

© engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside

the duties of his office; or

(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by

reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect

prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or
agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or
participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or
emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in
common with the other members of an incorporated company, he
shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of
misbehaviour.

Chapter V
Powers and functions of the Information Commissions, appeal and
penalties

Section 18: Powers and functions of Information

Commissions
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the
Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as
the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any
person,—

(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public

Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed
under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information
Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or
appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer
specified in sub- section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may
be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under
this Act;

© who has not been given a response to a request for information or

access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she
considers unreasonable

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete,

misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining

access to records under this Act.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an
inquiry in respect thereof.

(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any
matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a
civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure , in
respect of the following matters, namely:—

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel

them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the
documents or things;

(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

© receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or
office;

(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and

any other matter which may be prescribed; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act

of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the
case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act,
examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the
control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld
from it on any grounds.

Section 19: Appeal

How to file Se
under
RTI [Right to

righttoinformation.w

(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time
specified in sub- section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section
7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may
within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of
such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank
to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the
period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central

Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the
appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days
from the date of the order.

(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall
lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have
been made or was actually received, with the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State

Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal
after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time.

(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an
appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central
Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the
case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
that third party.

(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a

request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied
the request.

(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be

disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within
such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the
date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded
in writing.

(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State

Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State

Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be
necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,
including—

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular

form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the

maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information

for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b)

of sub-section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any
loss or other detriment suffered;

© impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision,
including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public
authority.

(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

There is a landmark case of Supreme Court of India in which

Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between appeal and
complaint and the case id Central Information Commission Vs State
of Manipur. The case is as followed :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-

32769/2010)

Chief Information Commr. and Another

...Appellant(s)

- Versus -

State of Manipur and Another

...Respondent(s)
 J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the Chief Information Commissioner,

Manipur and one Mr. Wahangbam Joykumar impugning the judgment dated
29th July 2010 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of
2008 in connection with two Writ Petition No.733 of 2007 and Writ Petition
No. 478 of 2007. The material facts giving rise to the controversy in this
case can be summarized as follows:

3. Appellant No.2 filed an application dated 9th February, 2007 under

Section 6 of the Right to Information Act ("Act") for obtaining information
from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries initiated
by the Govt. of Manipur from 1980-2006. As the application under Section 6
received no response, appellant No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 18 of
the Act before the State Chief Information Commissioner, who by an order
dated 30th May, 2007 directed respondent No. 2 to furnish the information
within 15 days. The said direction was challenged by the State by filing a
Writ Petition.

4. The second complaint dated 19th May, 2007 was filed by the appellant
No. 2 on 19th May, 2007 for obtaining similar information for the period
between 1980 - March 2007. As no response was received this time also,
appellant No. 2 again filed a complaint under Section 18 and the same was
disposed of by an order dated 14th August, 2007 directing disclosure of the
information sought for within 15 days. That order was also challenged by
way of a Writ Petition by the respondents.

5. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together and were dismissed by a
common order dated 16th November, 2007 by learned Single Judge of the
High Court by inter alia upholding the order of the Commissioner. The Writ
Appeal came to be filed against both the judgments and were disposed of by
the impugned order dated 29th July 2010. By the impugned order, the High
Court held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commissioner has no power
to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such
a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act on the
basis of an exercise under Section 19 only. The Division Bench further came
to hold that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and
directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with
law.

6. Before dealing with controversy in this case, let us consider the object and
purpose of the Act and the evolving mosaic of jurisprudential thinking which
virtually led to its enactment in 2005.

7. As its preamble shows the Act was enacted to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen
the core constitutional values of a democratic republic. It is clear that the
Parliament enacted the said Act keeping in mind the rights of an informed
citizenry in which transparency of information is vital in curbing corruption
and making the Government and its instrumentalities accountable. The Act
is meant to harmonise the conflicting interests of Government to preserve
the confidentiality of sensitive information with the right of citizens to know
the functioning of the governmental process in such a way as to preserve the
paramountcy of the democratic ideal.

8. The preamble would obviously show that the Act is based on the concept
of an open society.

9. On the emerging concept of an `open Government', about more than three

decades ago, the Constitution Bench of this Court in The State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Raj Narain & others - AIR 1975 SC 865 speaking through Justice
Mathew held:

"...The people of this country have a right to know every public act,
everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They
are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of
speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when
secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no
repercussion on public security. ... To cover with veil of secrecy, the
common routine business, is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy
can seldom be legitimately desired."

(para 74, page 884)

10. Another Constitution Bench in S.P.Gupta & Ors. v.

President of India and Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 149) relying on the ratio in Raj
Narain (supra) held:

"...The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right
to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosure of
information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and
secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public
interest so demands.

The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much
as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in
mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public
interest..."

(para 66, page 234)

11. It is, therefore, clear from the ratio in the above decisions of the
Constitution Bench of this Court that the right to information, which is
basically founded on the right to know, is an intrinsic part of the
fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The said Act was, thus, enacted to consolidate
the fundamental right of free speech.

12. In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and

Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. - (1995) 2 SCC 161, this
Court also held that right to acquire information and to disseminate it is an
intrinsic component of freedom of speech and expression.

(See para 43 page 213 of the report).

13. Again in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v.

Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. & others -

(1988) 4 SCC 592 this Court recognised that the Right to Information is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

14. This Court speaking through Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, as His

Lordship then was, held:
"...We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order
to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life
and democracy. Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free
country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our
land under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached new
dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those
who take upon themselves the responsibility to inform."

(para 34, page 613 of the report)

15. In People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v.

Union of India and Ors. - (2004) 2 SCC 476 this Court reiterated, relying on
the aforesaid judgments, that right to information is a facet of the right to
freedom of "speech and expression" as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India and also held that right to information is definitely a
fundamental right. In coming to this conclusion, this Court traced the origin
of the said right from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and
also Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which was ratified by India in 1978. This Court also found a similar
enunciation of principle in the Declaration of European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights (1950) and found that the spirit of the Universal
Declaration of 1948 is echoed in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (See
paras 45, 46 & 47 at page 495 of the report)

16. The exercise of judicial discretion in favour of free speech is not only
peculiar to our jurisprudence, the same is a part of the jurisprudence in all
the countries which are governed by rule of law with an independent
judiciary. In this connection, if we may quote what Lord Acton said in one
of his speeches:

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is

safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity"

17. It is, therefore, clear that a society which adopts openness as a value of
overarching significance not only permits its citizens a wide range of
freedom of expression, it also goes further in actually opening up the
deliberative process of the Government itself to the sunlight of public
scrutiny.
18. Justice Frankfurter also opined:

"The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive

sentiment. Such a sentiment is fostered by all those agencies of the mind and
spirit which may serve to gather up the traditions of a people, transmit them
from generation to generation, and thereby create that continuity of a
treasured common life which constitutes a civilization. "We live by
symbols." The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all
internal differences, however large, within the framework of the
Constitution."
19. Actually the concept of active liberty, which is structured on free speech,
means sharing of a nation's sovereign authority among its people.

Sovereignty involves the legitimacy of a governmental action. And a sharing

of sovereign authority suggests intimate correlation between the functioning
of the Government and common man's knowledge of such functioning.

(Active Liberty by Stephen Breyer - page 15)

20. However, while considering the width and sweep of this right as well as
its fundamental importance in a democratic republic, this Court is also
conscious that such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article
19(2) of the Constitution.

21. Thus note of caution has been sounded by this Court in Dinesh Trivedi,
M.P. & Others v. Union of India & others - (1997) 4 SCC 306 where it has
been held as follows:

"...Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But it is equally important to be alive to

the dangers that lie ahead. It is important to realize that undue popular
pressure brought to bear on decision makers in Government can have
frightening side-effects. If every action taken by the political or executive
functionary is transformed into a public controversy and made subject to an
enquiry to soothe popular sentiments, it will undoubtedly have a chilling
effect on the independence of the decision maker who may find it safer not
to take any decision. It will paralyse the entire system and bring it to a
grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations almost enigmatic and
we think the answer is to maintain a fine balance which would serve public
interest."
(para 19, page 314)

22. The Act has six Chapters and two Schedules. Right to Information has
been defined under Section 2(j) of the Act to mean as follows:

"(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under

this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and
includes the right to-

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video

cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"

23. Right to Information has also been statutorily recognised under Section 3
of the Act as follows:

"3. Right to information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens
shall have the right to information."

24. Section 6 in this connection is very crucial.

Under Section 6 a person, who desires to obtain any information under this
Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English
or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is
being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed. Such request may
be made to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, or to the Central Assistant Public
Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer. In making
the said request the applicant is not required to give any reason for obtaining
the information or any other personal details excepting those which are
necessary for contacting him.

25. It is quite interesting to note that even though under Section 3 of the Act
right of all citizens, to receive information, is statutorily recognised but
Section 6 gives the said right to any person.

Therefore, Section 6, in a sense, is wider in its ambit than Section 3.

26. After such a request for information is made, the primary obligation of
consideration of the request is of the Public Information Officer as provided
under Section 7. Such request has to be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible. In any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of the request
either the information shall be provided or the same may be rejected for any
of the reasons provided under Sections 8 and 9. The proviso to Section 7
makes it clear that when it concerns the life or liberty of a person, the
information shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the
request. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 makes it clear that if the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, fails to give the information, specified in sub-section (1), within a period
of 30 days it shall be deemed that such request has been rejected. Sub-
section (3) of Section 7 provides for payment of further fees representing the
cost of information to be paid by the person concerned. There are various
sub-sections in Section 7 with which we are not concerned. However, Sub-
section (8) of Section 7 is important in connection with the present case.

Sub-section (8) of Section 7 provides:

"(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be shall communicate to the person making the request,-

(i) The reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be
preferred; and
(iii)the particulars of the appellate authority.

27. Sections 8 and 9 enumerate the grounds of exemption from disclosure of

information and also grounds for rejection of request in respect of some
items of information respectively. Section 11 deals with third party
information with which we are not concerned in this case.

28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if
any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing
disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench,
the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond
his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and
14th August, 2007.

The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State
Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State
Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the
complainant.

29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under
Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1).
Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may
receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused
access to any information requested under this Act [Section 18(1)(b)] or has
been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act
[Section 18(1)(e)] or has not been given a response to a request for
information or access to information within time limits specified under the
Act [Section 18(1)(c). We are not concerned with provision of Section
18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary
provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act.

Under Section 18(3) of the Act the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, while inquiring into any
matter in this Section has the same powers as are vested in a civil court
while trying a suit in respect of certain matters specified in Section 18(3)(a)
to (f). Under Section 18(4) which is a non-obstante clause, the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case
may be, may examine any record to which the Act applies and which is
under the control of the public authority and such records cannot be withheld
from it on any ground.

30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18
of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has
been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The
only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or
the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is
an order of penalty provided under Section 20.
However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied
that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned
judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner
while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no
jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.

32. In the facts of the case, the appellant after having applied for information
under Section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be
deemed that he has been refused the information. The said situation is
covered by Section 7 of the Act. The remedy for such a person who has been
refused the information is provided under Section 19 of the Act. A reading
of Section 19(1) of the Act makes it clear. Section 19(1) of the Act is set out
below:-

"19. Appeal. - (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the
time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7,
or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days
from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer
an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as the case may
be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the
period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time."

33. A second appeal is also provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19.
Section 19(3) is also set out below:-

"(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie
within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been
made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or
the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information

Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of
the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time."

34. Section 19(4) deals with procedure relating to information of a third

party. Sections 19(5) and 19(6) are procedural in nature. Under Section
19(8) the power of the Information Commission has been specifically
mentioned. Those powers are as follows:-

"19(8). In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State

Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,--

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to
secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including--

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the

maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its
officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of

sub-section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss
or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application."

35. The procedure for hearing the appeals have been framed in exercise of
power under clauses (e) and

(f) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act.

They are called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)
Rules, 2005. The procedure of deciding the appeals is laid down in Rule 5 of
the said Rules.

Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of

the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section
18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an
appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving
the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner
provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section
19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section
19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by
refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by
following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant
that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the
express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a
procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said
statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay
down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a
time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor
[(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done
in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other
modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.

This principle has been followed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in Nazir Ahmad v.

Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253(1)] and also by this Court in Deep Chand v.
State of Rajasthan - [AIR 1961 SC 1527, (para 9)] and also in State of U.P.

v. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 (para 8).

36. This Court accepts the argument of the appellant that any other
construction would render the provision of Section 19(8) of the Act totally
redundant. It is one of the well known canons of interpretation that no statute
should be interpreted in such a manner as to render a part of it redundant or
surplusage.

37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different
purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two
different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other.

38. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant
caution. The same is not the position here. Here a completely different
procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced
by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted in that case Section 19
will become unworkable and especially Section 19(8) will be rendered a
surplusage. Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental
canons of construction. Reference in this connection may be made to the
decision of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose and another v.

Arabinda Bose and another - AIR 1952 SC 369. At page 377 of the report
Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri had laid down:

"It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute

as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in
circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute".

39. Same was the opinion of Justice Jagannadhadas in Rao Shiv Bahadur
Singh and another v. State of U.P. - AIR 1953 SC 394 at page 397:

"It is incumbent on the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably

permissible on the language, which would render a part of the statute devoid
of any meaning or application".

40. Justice Das Gupta in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others - AIR 1961 SC 1170 at page 1174 virtually
reiterated the same principles in the following words:

"the courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof
for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute
should have effect".

41. It is well-known that the legislature does not waste words or say
anything in vain or for no purpose. Thus a construction which leads to
redundancy of a portion of the statute cannot be accepted in the absence of
compelling reasons. In the instant case there is no compelling reason to
accept the construction put forward by the respondents.

42. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when
compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of
the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section
19(5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19(5) puts the onus to
justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the
officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart
from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time bound one but no limit is
prescribed under Section 18. So out of the two procedures, between Section
18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person
who has been denied access to information.

43. There is another aspect also. The procedure under Section 19 is an

appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of statute. A right
of appeal is a right of entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and
interposition to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable
right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must be
exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be furnished
with the information.

In that view of the matter this Court does not find any error in the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench. In the penultimate paragraph the Division
Bench has directed the Information Commissioner, Manipur to dispose of
the complaints of the respondent no.2 in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible.

44. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section
19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information
vide applications dated 9.2.2007 and 19.5.2007 within a period of four
weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory
procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the
appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation.

45. However, one aspect is still required to be clarified. This Court makes it
clear that the notification dated 15.10.2005 which has been brought on
record by the learned counsel for the respondent vide I.A. No.1 of 2011 has
been perused by the Court. By virtue of the said notification issued under
Section 24 of the Act, the Government of Manipur has notified the
exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the
purview of the said Act. This Court makes it clear that those notifications
cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not
cover allegations of corruption and human right violations. The right of the
respondents to get the information in question must be decided on the basis
of the law as it stood on the date when the request was made. Such right
cannot be defeated on the basis of a notification if issued subsequently to
time when the controversy about the right to get information is pending
before the Court. Section 24 of the Act does not have any retrospective
operation.

Therefore, no notification issued in exercise of the power under Section 24

can be given retrospective effect and especially so in view of the object and
purpose of the Act which has an inherent human right content.

46. The appeals which the respondents have been given liberty to file, if
filed within the time specified, will be decided in accordance with Section
19 of the Act and as early as possible, preferably within three months of
their filing.

With these directions both the appeals are disposed of.

47. There will be no order as to costs.

.......................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) .......................J.

New Delhi (GYAN SUDHA

MISRA)

December 12, 2011

Section: 20 Penalties

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State

Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the
time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied
the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the
subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-
five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State

Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed
on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably

and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State

Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to
receive an application for information or has not furnished information
within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7 or
malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for
disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the
service rules applicable to him.

Chapter VI
Miscellaneous
Section 21: Protection of action taken in good faith
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any
person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be
done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.

Section 22: Act to have overriding effect

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and
any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having
effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

Section 23: Bar of jurisdiction of courts

No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in
respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be
called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

Section 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.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other
intelligence or security organisation established by that Government
or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and
on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be
deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the
Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before
each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and
security organisation being organisations established by the State
Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

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 State 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.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before
the State Legislature.

Following are few important cases related to certain organizations

covered under the preview of second schedule of the given section –
section 24 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7439/2012

CPIO CBI
CJ KARIRA
Through: versus Through:
..... Petitioner Mr Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate for

CBI.

..... Respondent Respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O RDER % 07.09.2017

VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated
31.10.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'CIC')
whereby CIC had directed the petitioner to provide the information as sought
by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Central Bureau of Investigation
(hereafter 'CBI') is included in the second schedule to the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') and, by virtue of section 24(1) of
the Act, is exempt from the purview of the Act.

3. The respondent disputes the above contention and claims that, by virtue of
the proviso to section 24(1) of the Act, the information sought by him is not
exempt from disclosure. The petitioner controverts the aforesaid

W.P.(C) 7439/2012 Page 1 of 5

contention and contends that the information sought by the petitioner does
not fall within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act.
4. In view of the above, the only controversy to be addressed is whether the
information sought by the petitioner falls within the proviso to Section 24(1)
of the Act.

5. The respondent had filed an application dated 31.01.2012 with the

petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following information for the period
January 2007 to December 2011.
"1. All the Ministries / Departments of the Government of India.
Union Public Service Commission/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya Sabha
Secretariat/Cabinet Secretariat/Central Vigilance Commission/
President's Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Prima Minister's
Office/Planning Commission/Election Commission.

Central Information Commission/State Information Commissions

Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, New Delhi

Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi

All Officers/Desks/Sections, Department of Personnel & Training and

 Department of Pension & Pensions Welfare"

6. The
05.03.2012 claiming that CBI was included within the second

schedule to the Act and, thus, in terms of section 24(1) of the Act was
excluded from the
petitioner had responded to the aforesaid request by a letter dated

W.P.(C) 7439/2012 Page 2 of 5

applicability of the Act.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 24(1) of

the Act, which is set out below:-
"24. Act not to apply in certain organizations.—(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."

8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of
the Act that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human
rights violation are not excluded from the purview. The petitioner contended
that since the information sought related to allegations of corruption, the
same were not excluded from the scope of Section 24(1) of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had countered the aforesaid
contention and submitted that the proviso must be read in a restricted
W.P.(C) 7439/2012 Page 3 of 5

manner and, only information pertaining to allegations of corruption relating

to the public authority - in this case CBI - was excluded from the purview of
Section 24(1) of the Act. It was contended that since the information sought
by the respondent pertain to allegations of corruption in other organisations,
the first proviso would be inapplicable and, the petitioner would not be
obliged to disclose the same.

10. The aforesaid question is squarely covered by the decision of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi: W.P.(C) 5521/2016, decided on 23.08.2017, whereby this Court
has held as under:-
"29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable
with regard to any information. The term “any information” would include
within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if
the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights
violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information
being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the
information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security
organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights
violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause.
30. The proviso “Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations
of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this
sub-section” has to be read in the light of the preceding phrase “or any
information furnished by such organisations to that Government”.

31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the
information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right
violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the
fact that the
W.P.(C) 7439/2012 Page 4 of 5

information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or

not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not."
11. The respondent who is present in Court states that the information sought
by him has become stale and, he be permitted to file a fresh application
under the Act. Plainly, the respondent is not precluded from filing an
application before the petitioner for information relating to allegations of
corruption or human rights violation. In the event such application is filed,
the petitioner would examine the same. Although, it would not be open for
the petitioner to claim that information relating to allegations of corruption
in other organisation is exempt from disclosure, however, the petitioner
would be at liberty to examine whether the information sought by the
petitioner is exempt under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Act.

12. The CIC had also awarded cost of ₹153/- to the petitioner, which the
petitioner has not been paid as yet. The petitioner is directed to pay the sum
alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.10.2012 till the date
of payment. Such payment as directed be paid within a period of four weeks
from today.
13. The petition is disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 RK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

2. Delhi High Court

Cpio, Intelligence Bureau vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi on 23 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment
reserved on: 17th May 2017
Judgment
delivered on: 23rd August 2017

+ W.P.(C) 5521/2016 & CM No.23078/2016

(stay)
CPIO, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU
..... Petitioner
versus

SANJIV CHATURVEDI
..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr.
R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Respondent in person.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. The Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as CPIO)

of the Intelligence Bureau has filed this petition impugning order dated
21.04.2016, passed by the Central Information Commission under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. The Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as CIC), by

the impugned order dated 21.04.2016, has held that the copy of the report of
the Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IB), concerning the
respondent, is information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human
rights violation and is, thus, liable to be given to the respondent. The
Commission has directed the Intelligence Bureau and the Ministry of
Environment, Forests & Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as MoEF)
to provide a certified copy of the IB report relating to the respondent, as
sought for by him by an application dated 05.12.2015.

3. The directions have been issued by the CIC on arriving at the following
conclusion

a) It is factually proved that appellant was put to extreme hardship by the

corrupt political rulers and corrupt public servants In retaliation of his
unstinted Implementation of rule of law.
b) The gist of IB report as furnished by IB in response to the RTI request of
appellant in this case shows that its disclosure could cause no harm to core
activity of security or intelligence of IB.

c) section 24 of RTI Act does not authorize the public authorities exempted
under this section to block entire Information held by it or generated and
given to other public authorities enbloc, but it exclusion from disclosure is
limited to that which pertains to core functioning of 'security' and
'intelligence' aspect of exempted organization.

d) The IB report sought by appellant is not the information excluded from

purview of disclosure by RTI Act.

e) The IB report is information as per Section 2(f) held by MoEF and also
information pertaining to the allegation of corruption or human rights
violation as per Section 24 second proviso and hence certified copy of the
same shall be given to the appellant.

f) The public authorities exempted under S. 24 cannot use it to stonewall all

RTI requests indiscriminately. The IB has a statutory duty to make all
arrangements to provide the information other than that concerning 'security'
and 'Intelligence' if it pertains to corruption or human rights violation, or
useful to prevent corruption or human rights violation either under voluntary
disclosure clauses or other provisions of RTI Act."

4. The respondent on 05.12.2015 had filed an application seeking

information under the Act. The applicant sought the following information:-

"i. Kindly provide me certified copy of all the file

noting/documents,correspondences/all type of reports between Ministry of
Environment, Forest &Climate Change. Department of Personnel
&Training, Cabinet Secretariat and Appointment Committee of Cabinet,
regarding interstate Cadre Transfer of Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Deputy
Secretary AIIMS, New Delhi from Haryana to Uttrakhand (excluding my
own representations).
ii. Kindly provide me certified copy of all the file
noting/documents/correspondences/all type of reports between Ministry of
Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Department of Personnel &Training, Cabinet Secretariat and
Appointment Committee of Cabinet, regarding Interstate Cadre Deputation
of Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Deputy Secretary, AIIMS, New Delhi, to
GNCT, Delhi (excluding my own representations)."
5. The CPIO, MoEF, by its response dated 07.01.2016, to the above
application, provided copies of all the correspondences and notesheet other
than the representations of the respondent.

6. On 18.01.2016, after receipt of the above documents, the respondent

requested for supply of the IB report. The request was made on the ground
that a mention had been made in the file noting/correspondences of an IB
report about the respondent. The gist of the said report has been reproduced
in the file noting.

7. Copy of the report was sought by the respondent contending that the
information contained in the IB report pertained only to the respondent and
was not about anyone else and further had no connection with the national
securities or relation with foreign countries.

8. The CPIO, MoEF declined supply of copy of the IB report on the ground
that the same was exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 24 of the
Act.

9. Consequent to the denial of supply of copy of the IB report, the

respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act with the Central
Information Commission.

10. The petitioner as well as the CPIO, MoEF opposed the application, filed
by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act, on the ground that the
information was exempted from disclosure as the report was an intelligence
report of the Intelligence Bureau, which is one of the organizations
mentioned in the Schedule of the Act and exempted in terms of Section 24
of the Act.

11. The CPIO also relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated
09.10.2013 in WP(C) 7453/2011 titled UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS.
ADARSH SHARMA to contend that the exception carved out from the
exemption would be applicable in case the allegation of corruption and the
human right violation was with regard to the intelligence Bureau.

12. The CIC allowed the application of the respondent under Section 24 of
the Act and passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2016.
13. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner i.e. the CPIO, Intelligence
Bureau has filed the present petition contending that the directions issued by
the CIC, are contrary to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and the impugned order is
without jurisdiction in view of Second Schedule of Section 24 of the Act,
wherein, not only the Intelligence Bureau has been exempted but also the
information provided by the Intelligence Bureau to the Government has been
specifically exempted. It is contended by the petitioner that the information
sought does not fall within the exception carved out by the proviso to
Section 24 of the Act inasmuch as neither it pertains to any allegation of
corruption nor of human rights violation within the intelligence bureau. It is
contended that the issue raised by the respondent is an ordinary service
matter.

14. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the exception carved out
by the proviso to Section 24, which, specifies "information pertaining to the
allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded
under this sub-Section" would apply only if the allegation of corruption or
human rights violations were within the Intelligence Bureau or pertaining to
an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau. It is contended that only in case the
allegations of corruption or human rights violation were relatable
specifically to the officers of the Intelligence Bureau would the exceptions
carved out by the proviso apply. It is further contended that the exception
would have no application in case the allegations of corruption or human
rights violation pertain to organization other than the Intelligence Bureau, in
respect of which the report was submitted.

15. It is further contended that no allegations were made with regard to

corruption or human rights violation by the officers of the Intelligence
Bureau and the allegations were with regard to the Department where the
respondent was serving. Since the IB report, submitted by the petitioner, had
been with regard to the organization where the respondent was serving, the
same did not come within the purview of the exceptions carved out by the
proviso to Section 24 of the Act.

16. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
decision in the case of ADARSH SHARMA (supra). Further, reliance is
placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. SUNDARAM
PILLAI & ORS. VS. V.R. PATTABIRAMAN & ORS.: 1985 SCC 591 to
contend that a proviso cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has been
provided for nor can it be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the
enactment or to take away in entirety a right that has been conferred.
Further, that a Court has no power to add or subtract even a single
interpretation to legislation. Reference is also drawn to a judgment of the
Supreme Court in ROHITASH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA:
(2013) 11 SCC 451.

17. The respondent, in his response, has contended that the respondent, who
is an officer belonging to 2002 batch of Indian Forrest Service, was earlier
allocated Haryana Cadre, which was subsequently changed to Uttrakhand in
August 2015, on account of extreme hardships. It is contended that the gist
of the Intelligence Bureau report, copy of which had been sought by the
respondent, as disclosed to the respondent states that "there appears to be
truth in the contention of Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi regarding alleged
harassment meted out to him by Haryana Government. His request for
change of cadre from Haryana to Uttarakhand merits consideration." It is
contended that the gist of the report clearly evidences that the case involves
issue of corruption and human rights violation and, hence, is covered by the
exceptions created by the proviso to Section 24 of the Act.

18. It is further contended that the Intelligence Bureau is not exempted from
disclosure of information, if the information is related to allegations of
corruption and human rights violation. It is contended that the respondent
has been fighting against corruption and has been raising the issues of
corruption. Because of the issues of corruption, raised by the respondent,
several orders were passed by the State Government against the respondent.
Four presidential orders were issued in favour of the respondent quashing
various orders passed by the State Government.

19. It is contended that the respondent has been appreciated and rewarded
for his performance and integrity. The respondent, during his tenure in the
Haryana cadre, is alleged to have exposed corruption in multi-crore
plantation scam in Jhajjar and Hisar district, corruption in construction of a
Herbal Park at private land with Government money, illicit felling and
poaching in Saraswati Wildlife Sanctuary, corruption in granting license to
plywood units etc.

20. It is contended that the respondent was harassed through suspension,

major penalty, departmental chargesheet, police and vigilance cases and 12
transfers in just five years.
21. It is contended that the respondent applied for change of cadre from
Haryana to Uttrakhand in October 2012 on the ground of major hardships
and threat to life. To assess the threat to life of the respondent, the then
Secretary, MoEF sought for a report from the Intelligence Bureau in August
2014. The intelligence Bureau confirmed extreme hardships and harassment
of the respondent.

22. It is contended by the respondent that proviso to Section 24 covers all

cases of corruption and human rights violation and is not restricted to issues
of corruption and human rights violation within the organizations referred to
in the Schedule.

23. It is further contended that, in terms of the Preamble of the Act, which
lays down that the Act is made to promote transparency and accountability
in the working of every public authority and to contain corruption and to
hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed,
the information relating to corruption, if withheld, would negate and defeat
the very preamble of the Act.

24. It is contended that several Ministries and Organizations of the Central

Government have disclosed information supplied to them by the Intelligence
Bureau in cases of corruption without claiming exemptions under Section 24
of the Act.

25. The question that arises for consideration is whether the exception
carved out by the proviso to Section 24 would apply only if the allegation of
corruption or human rights violations were with regard to the Intelligence
Bureau itself or pertaining to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau?

26. Section 24 (1) of the Act reads as under:-

"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--

(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.
(2) ****** ******
27. Section 24 (1) inter alia make the Act inapplicable to intelligence and
security organizations, established by the Central Government, specified in
the Second Schedule and further excludes any information furnished by such
organisations to the Central Government from being liable to be disclosed.
However, an exception is carved out to the exclusion clause with respect to
information covered by the proviso. The proviso stipulates that if the
information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights
violations, it shall not be excluded under this sub-section.
28. A distinction is drawn by the proviso between intelligence and security
organizations and the information furnished by such organisation to the
Central Government. The exception carved out by the proviso to the
exclusion clause is only with regard to the information and not with regard
to the intelligence and security organizations.

29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable
with regard to any information. The term "any information" would include
within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if
the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights
violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information
being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the
information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security
organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights
violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause.

30. The proviso "Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations
of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this
sub-section" has to be read in the light of the preceding phrase "or any
information furnished by such organisations to that Government".

31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the
information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right
violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the
fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security
organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or
not.
32. The Judgments in the case of SUNDARAM PILLAI (Supra) and
ROHITASH KUMAR (supra) are clearly not applicable in the facts of the
present case. The interpretation as rendered above, does not nullify the
enactment or take away a right in entirety. In fact, the right to obtain
information, conferred by the Act, is taken away by the exclusion in Section
24 of the Act. The proviso carves out an exception to the exclusion clause
and further brings the information within the ambit of the Act. The proviso
is in line with the very object of the Act.

33. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in SUPERINTENDENT

OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION V. R. KARTHIKEYAN, AIR
2012 Mad 84 has very aptly culled out the necessity and the object for
enactment of the Act in the following manner:

"8. India has adopted a democratic form of Government and no democratic

Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of
accountability is that the people should have information about the
functioning of the Government. It is only when the people know how the
Government is functioning, they can fulfill the role which democracy
assigned to them and make democracy a really effective participatory
democracy. Right to information is basic to any democracy. A vibrant
citizenry is a pre-requisite for survival of democratic society and
governance. The quality of life in a civilized society depends upon the
quality of exchange of information about the governance and related aspects.
It is now widely recognised that openness and accessibility of people to
information about the Government's functioning is a vital component of
democracy. Disclosure of allowable information would lead to better system
and it would be in the public interest that a Public Authority should throw
open the process of public scrutiny, which would result in evolving a better
system. Disclosure of information would compromise the integrity and
efficiency of the functioning of the Public Authority. In an increasingly
knowledge- based society, information and access to information holds the
key to resources, benefits and distribution of power. Information, more than
any other element, is of critical importance in a participatory democracy.
9. The Right to Information Act is a rights based enactment more akin to any
other enactments safeguarding fundamental rights. As the statement of the
object of the Act goes, democracy requires an informed citizenry and
transparency of information. The Act encompasses basically two things,
firstly, the right of a citizen to seek for information to which he is entitled
under the provisions of the Act and the corresponding duty of the
Information Officers to furnish such information and secondly, it leads to
transparency in the Government functioning.
10. The use of the Right to Information Act needs no elaborate reference as
the very fact that such a right to get information has been recognised as a
fundamental right. To put it precisely, the information supplied under the
Act brings about transparency and accountability, both of which hold to
reduce corruption and increased efficiency in governance and it also
encourages participation of the people in a democracy. The need for right to
information ensures people's participation, ensures principle of
accountability, transparency, limiting the discretion powers given to
officials, protects the civil liberties, effective and proper implementation of
schemes of Government and makes media more effective.
11. Though the Indian Constitution has no express provision guaranteeing
the right to information, it has been recognized by the Courts in a plethora of
cases as implicit in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees to all citizens the right
to free speech and expression, and Article 21 of the Constitution which
guarantees the right to life in accordance with due process to all citizens.
The background of the enactment will not be complete if the contribution of
the Hon'ble Apex Court for the legislation is not mentioned. The Apex Court
in the decision in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, interpreted
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India so widely so as to include so
many rights within its sweeping shadow. One such right is the right to
information. It is observed in the said judgment that "the right to know
which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute
is a factor which should make wary, when secrecy is claimed for
transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security."
The Apex Court further observed that "the people of this country have the
right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by
their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every
public transaction in its bearing." The concept of an open Government is the
direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the
right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), as
observed by the Apex Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC
149.
12. In the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government
of India v. The Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 (2) SCC 179, the Apex
Court, while considering the freedom of speech and expression in the light
of the right to information, has observed that "freedom of speech and
expression is basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It includes
the right to impart and receive information." The Apex Court has also
observed that "for ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of the
country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views
and a range of opinions on all public issues and a successful democracy
posits an 'aware' citizenry."
13. The pride for enactment of the Right to Information Act would certainly
go to the judiciary as could be seen from certain observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in some of the judgments. The judgment in Union of India v.
Association for Democractic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 is again a
forerunner for recognising the right to information as a fundamental right
and the said judgment laid the foundation over which the superstructure of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 was built. In Peoples' Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India, 2004 (1) CTC 241 (SC) : 2004 (2) SCC 476, it
was observed that--
"Right of information is a facet of the freedom of 'speech and expression' as
contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of
information, thus, indisputably is a fundamental right."
In another case in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, 2002 (5)
SCC 294, it was observed that "the right to get information in a democracy
is recognized all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept
of democracy".
14. The Apex Court in India Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of
India, 2003 (5) SCC 494, also took the same view and held --
"It is no doubt true that in a democratic framework free flow of information
to the citizens is necessary for proper functioning particularly in matters
which form part of a public record. The decisions relied upon by the learned
Counsel of the Petitioner do not also say that right to information is absolute.
There are several areas where such information need not be furnished. Even
the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, to which also reference has been
made, does not say in absolute terms that information gathered at any level
in any manner for any purpose shall be disclosed to the public."
34. CIC has found that the Respondent was put to extreme hardship by the
corrupt political rulers and corrupt public servants in retaliation of his
unstinted Implementation of rule of law. CIC has further found that the gist
of IB report as furnished by IB in response to the RTI request of appellant
shows that its disclosure could cause no harm to core activity of security or
intelligence of IB. The IB report is information as per Section 2(f) held by
MoEF and the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human
rights violation.
35. Clearly, the information sought by the respondent falls in the category of
being exempt from the exclusion clause and is liable to be supplied.

36. The judgment in the case of ADARSH SHARMA (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner has no applicability in the facts of the
present case. The Court in that case was dealing with information sought,
concerning one doctor from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The information
sought was about the date of last departure of the doctor from India, the
destination, airlines and the passport number. The application was
transferred by the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Intelligence
Bureau. The Intelligence Bureau claimed exemption under Section 24 of the
Act. The information sought for, pertained to the Immigration Department of
the Intelligence Bureau. Since the information was not related to the
allegations of corruption or human rights violation, learned Single Judge
held that the said information did not come within the purview of the
exceptions carved out by the proviso to Section 24 of the Act. It is, in these
circumstances, that the directions of the CIC, directing supply of
information, were quashed.

37. In view of the above, looked at from any angle, there is no infirmity with
the view taken by the CIC by the impugned order dated 21.04.2016. There is
no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to
costs.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J August 23 , 2017 St/HJ

Section 25: Monitoring and Reporting

(1) The Central Information Commission or State Information

Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after
the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the
provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to
the appropriate Government.

(2) Each Ministry or Department shall, in relation to the public

authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such
information to the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, as is required to
prepare the report under this section and comply with the
requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and
keeping of records for the purposes of this section.

(3) Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report
relates,—

(a) the number of requests made to each public authority

(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to

access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of
this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of
times such provisions were invoked;

© the number of appeals referred to the Central Information

Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be,
for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in

respect of the administration of this Act;

(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under

this Act;

(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to

administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;

(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in

respect of the particular public authorities, for the development,
improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or
other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for
operationalising the right to access information.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case

may be, may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year,
cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or
the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred to in
sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the
case may be, before each House of the State Legislature, where
there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the State
Legislature before that House.

(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State

Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a
public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this
Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may
give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which
ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

Section 26: Appropriate Government to prepare

programmes
(1) The appropriate Government may, to the extent of availability of
financial and other resources,—

(a) develop and organise educational programmes to advance the

understanding of the public, in particular of disadvantaged
communities as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under this
Act;

(b) encourage public authorities to participate in the development and

organisation of programmes referred to in clause (a) and to undertake
such programmes themselves;

© promote timely and effective dissemination of accurate information

by public authorities about their activities; and

(d) train Central Public Information Officers or State Public

Information Officers, as the case may be, of public authorities and
produce relevant training materials for use by the public authorities
themselves.

(2) The appropriate Government shall, within eighteen months from

the commencement of this Act, compile in its official language a guide
containing such information, in an easily comprehensible form and
manner, as may reasonably be required by a person who wishes to
exercise any right specified in this Act.

(3) The appropriate Government shall, if necessary, update and

publish the guidelines referred to in sub-section (2) at regular
intervals which shall, in particular and without prejudice to the
generality of sub-section (2), include—

(a) the objects of this Act;

(b) the postal and street address, the phone and fax number and, if
available, electronic mail address of the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of
every public authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 5;

© the manner and the form in which request for access to an

information shall be made to a Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(d) the assistance available from and the duties of the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, of a public authority under this Act;

(e) the assistance available from the Central Information Commission

or State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(f) all remedies in law available regarding an act or failure to act in

respect of a right or duty conferred or imposed by this Act including
the manner of filing an appeal to the Commission;

(g) the provisions providing for the voluntary disclosure of categories

of records in accordance with section 4;

(h) the notices regarding fees to be paid in relation to requests for

access to an information; and
(i) any additional regulations or circulars made or issued in relation to
obtaining access to an information in accordance with this Act.

(4) The appropriate Government must, if necessary, update and

publish the guidelines at regular intervals.

Section 27: Power to make rules by appropriate

Government
(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:—

(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be
disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

© the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7;

(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and
conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-
section (6) of section 13 and sub-section (6) of section 16; the
procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or
State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the
appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and any other matter
which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

Section 28: Power to make rules by competent authority

(1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:—

(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be
disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7; and

(iv) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed

Section 29: Laying of rules

1. Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act
shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of
thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
session immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any
modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule
should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,
however, that any such modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
under that rule.
2. Every rule made under this Act by a State Government shall be
laid, as soon as may be after it is notified, before the State
Legislature.
Section 30: Power to remove difficulties
1. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this
Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the
Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or
expedient for removal of the difficulty: Provided that no such
order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years
 from the date of the commencement of this Act.
2. Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be
after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament.
Section 31: Repeal
The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 is hereby repealed

THE FIRST SCHEDULE

Form of oath or affirmation THE FIRST SCHEDULE

[See sections 13 (3) and 16(3)]

Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Chief Information

Commissioner/the Information Commissioner/the State Chief
Information Commissioner/the State Information Commissioner

“I, …………………, having been appointed Chief Information

Commissioner /Information Commissioner / State Chief Information
Commissioner / State Information Commissioner swear in the name
of God

solemnly affirm

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as
by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of
India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability,
knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear
or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and
the laws.”.

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

THE SECOND SCHEDULE
(See section 24)

Intelligence and security organisation established by the Central

Government

1. Intelligence Bureau.
2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
5. Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Narcotics Control Bureau.
7. Aviation Research Centre.
8. Special Frontier Force.
9. Border Security Force.
10. Central Reserve Police Force.
11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
12. Central Industrial Security Force.
13. National Security Guards.
14. Assam Rifles.
15. Sashastra Seema Bal.
16. Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) .
17. National Technical Research Organisation.
18. Financial Intelligence Unit, India.
19. Special Protection Group.
20. Defence Research and Development Organisation.
21. Border Road Development Board.
22. National Security Council Secretariat
23. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
24. National Investigation Agency (NIA)
25. National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)
26. Strategic Forces Command 4)