Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Atul Patankar

HC upholds exclusion of vigilance commission

Recommended Posts

Atul Patankar

As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 31 March 2008


CHENNAi: The Madras high court has upheld the state government's order exempting the state vigilance commission and the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC) from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.


A division bench, comprising Chief Justice H L Gokhale and Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla, dismissed a writ petition from P Pugazhendi, an advocate, seeking the quashing of an order dated August 26, 2008. by which the government invoked its powers under Sec 24(4) of the RTI to declare that the law shall not apply to the state vigilance commission and DVAC.


Several activists working for the right to information had questioned the government's move when the order was passed, wondering what was the need for the government to remove these organisations dealing with corruption among public servants to be exempted from the RTI.


The petitioner had raised several grounds to assail the exemption granted to the vigilance bodies from the law's purview. He had pointed out that the CBI had not been kept out of the RTI even though it was also dealing with corruption cases pertaining to public servants under the Central government. He also argued that the state government's exercise of its power to exempt the DVAC amounted to destroying the ideal of transparency in public administration.


However, the bench rejected these arguments. Referring to the point about the CBI, the court said the sub-sections of the Act concerning the central and state governments' power to exempt organisations involved in intelligence and security were separate provisions, and there was no need for one to be mixed up with the other.


On the point about erosion of transparency, the bench noted that the preamble to the legislation permitted "preservation of confidentiality" about sensitive information.


The bench noted that the order had itself mentioned that these organisations primarily dealt with investigation into alleged corrupt activities of public servants. "It is stated that confidentiality and secrecy in certain cases are required to be maintained right from initial state up to the filing of chargesheet (in cases that lead to criminal proceedings) and up to the final order in disciplinary proceedings.


The bench agreed with the government's contention that giving information relating to such proceedings would "lead to unnecessary embarrassment and definitely hamper due process".


"In our view, the state has given sufficient reasons as to why it was exercising powers under Sec 24(4)," the bench said, and dismissed the petition.

Source: HC upholds exclusion of vigilance commission - Chennai - Cities - The Times of India

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


      Decision No.296/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00607
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


      Name of the Appellant : Sh. G.P. Pathak, 152/A, Wright Town, Jabalpur
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-I, Central Revenue Building, Napier Town, Jabalpur
      Facts of the Case:

      The Lokayukta of M.P. conducted a search under the prevention of Corruption Act and seized cash, jewelry and other assets, worth over Rs.30 lakhs from the appellant. Under the law, these assets were taken under the custody of the DIT. In this backdrop, the appellant had asked for a copy of ‘Note of Satisfaction’ written by the Commission of Income Tax.
      The CPIO has refused to provide the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act. The appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO
      The case was heard on 20.9.2006. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO was present, who provided a detailed background of the case. He mentioned that the case is under investigation as the extent of unaccounted assets and the amount of tax evasion are yet to be determined.
      The CPIO showed the copy of the ‘note’ asked for by the appellant. It contains such details as the source of the information and actions taken by the officials, who are identifiable in the note. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of details would endanger the life of officials associated with the process of seizure of assets.
      Commission’s Decision:

      The disclosure of information sought would identify the officials who were associated with the conduct of raid and seizure of un-accounted assets, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter is also under investigation to determine the extent of tax evasion. The CPIO has, therefore, correctly applie dexemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (h) of the Act, from disclosure of information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission

      Decision No.300/IC(A)/2006
      F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2006/00436
      Dated, the 22nd September, 2006


      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Hemant Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s Alpha Exports, 419/B, Panchratna, Opera House,Mumbai – 400 004.
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-7(CIT), Room No.611, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020.

      The appellant sought the following information from the CPIO of the CIT:“the certified copy of the income tax returns, Balance Sheets alongwith annexures and Assessment Orders for financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and information,in respect of M/s White Diamond Industries Limited having its PAN No.AAACW0337R, ward No.Adl/JCIT Rg.7(3).”
      The CPIO denied to furnish the information on the ground that information sought relate to third party and also there is no public interest involved in disclosure of the information. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      In an umpteen number of cases, the Commission has observed that I.T and property returns filed by persons are personal information of third parties and therefore these should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Likewise, income tax assessment orders, though an outcome of public action, contain both personal details of assessees as well as commercial confidence nature of information. Hence, these documents should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy