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

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'investigation'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS's FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION's ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Topics
  • MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS's MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS Topics
  • INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES's INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • AAKANKSHA's AAKANKSHA Topics
  • RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE's RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • JVG DUPED CUST.'s JVG DUPED CUST. Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • WEWANTJUSTICE's WEWANTJUSTICE Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS's MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA's ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • UN-DO CORRUPTION's UN-DO CORRUPTION Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • NATIONAL ISSUE's NATIONAL ISSUE Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • RTI BALLIA's RTI BALLIA Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.'s PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • AMICE (INDIA)'s AMICE (INDIA) Topics
  • HELPING HAND !'s HELPING HAND ! Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS's AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL's URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL Topics
  • RTI HELP INDIA's RTI HELP INDIA Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics

Categories

  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • BSNL & MTNL
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence

Categories

  • RTI Act

Categories

  • News

Categories

  • Quotes

Categories

  • RTI Videos

Categories

  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 14 results

  1. Sir, Can we ask for accident details ie enquiry report in central government firms by rti and also details of punishment given to employees responsible.does asking this details of punishment of employees clash with right to privacy .Please guide
  2. Just got the news that RTI Activist Mr Amit Jethwa was shot dead this evening in Gujarat. Will update more later. Members, there have been too many incidents like this in the recent past. Remember, that RTI Act enables citizens only to get "information". It does not offer you any protective shield. You can read more about Amit Jethwa here: amit jethwa - Google Search amit jethva - Google Search
  3. Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Police case diary cannot be inspected during trial The Karnataka HC has ruled that police case diary cannot be allowed to be inspected by an accused before the trial begins or during the trial.
  4. Jammu, Feb 3: While hearing a second appeal related to information about the alleged Jagti township construction scam being investigated by State Vigilance Organisation (SVO), the State Information Commission (SIC) has directed the investigating agency to reveal all the information under RTI once the final investigation report is submitted before the competent court. Details available with Early Times reveal that a 2nd appeal was filed by one AjatJamwal against Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) of SVO for not providing information to him. R.K.Chalotra, SSP Vigilance Organization, Jammu, Gulshan Ahmad Kaloo, Deputy Director Prosecution (DDP) -cum- PIO, Vigilance Organization, J&K and the appellant along with his counsel attended the hearing at State Information Commission (SIC) office in Jammu on January 20 last. Read at: SIC to VO: Provide info under RTI once investigation is complete - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir
  5. Mere pendency of investigation / enquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. It must be shown by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) that the disclosure of the information would 'impede' or even on a lesser threshold 'hamper' or 'interfere' with the enquiry. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 03/12/2007 [WP© 3114/2007, Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs] has held as under:- “13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information.” Information cannot be denied on mere pendency of investigation The case citation can be read here: Mr. Y. N. Chaubey Vs M/o Labour & Employment
  6. Two brothers, retd colonels, got 31 plots under HUDA quota Two retired Army colonels being probed as part of an investigation into allegedly fraudulent multiple allotment of plots to individuals by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had between them got as many as 31 plots. Karan Singh Yadav and Dharam Singh Yadav, who are brothers, were allotted these plots in various urban estates of Haryana between 1998 and 2004 (including the time they were serving), documents submitted in the Punjab & Haryana High Court show. The scam is being probed by HUDA on the orders of the court. Over 325 FIRs have been registered against beneficiaries, including 188 defence personnel, who allegedly got more than one plot in their name, or in the name of their spouse or children. The Yadavs have got an interim stay on their arrest. Read More: Two brothers, retd colonels, got 31 plots under HUDA quota | The Indian Express
  7. From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak: Dear all, The Government of India has published in the Official Gazette the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Special Investigation Team it has set up to investigate the issue of black money stashed abroad by Indians (2nd attachment). The setting up of the SIT amounts to a welcome reversal of previous government policy on this subject. The previous Government had opposed this direction despite a clear order from the Supreme Court in 2011. The SIT will be headed by Justice (Retd.) M B Shah with Justice Arijit Pasayat as Vice-Chair. The rest of the members are the same ex officio senior bureaucrats who were part of the High Level Committee set up by the previous Government to look into the cases of persons who were said to have stashed away money in foreign banks abroad. The Joint Secy. (Revenue) has been added to this list as Member Secretary of the SIT. This SIT is an outcome of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1- judgement delivered in July 2011. It is also interesting to note that with the exception of the retired judges and bureaucrats of the Finance Ministry, all other members are representatives of organisations notified under the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) which are not required to furnish any information other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.However, in my opinion, as the SIT has been set up by a notification of the Central Government and as it will be wholly financed by the same Government, it will be a public authority under the RTI Act. Terms of Reference seemingly omit an important Court direction: While going through the ToR, I found that a crucial direction given by the Supreme Court in July 2011 is missing form the Gazette notification published by the Central Government. On page 66 of its judgement the Apex Court had ordered two more things to be done by the SIT in addition to what it said on pages 38-42 (1st attachment): 1) that the SIT must take over the investigation of individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein as disclosed by Germany to India and expeditiously conduct the same; and 2) SIT should review concluded matters also to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not and if they conclude that there is scope for further investigation they should proceed further. On 01 May this year the Central Government had said that investigations had been concluded against 18 of the 26 individuals that had bank accounts in Liechtenstein. These names were received from Germany and investigation had concluded in 17 cases. No evidence was found against 8 individuals and the investigation had been concluded against them. You will find this information in the daily order of the Apex Court at: http://judis.nic.in/temp/17620093152014p.txt So technically the ToR should have included reopening of these cases also to assess whether everything was properly done and if there is any need to proceed further. The current ToR published in the Gazette do not explicitly refer to these two directions. However I hope the SIT in its wisdom will interpret its mandate broadly to cover these directions as well and make up for what probably is an omission due to oversight. Importance of this case to RTI Readers who have gone through the Supreme Court's judgement and those who may like to read it now, will notice that this appeal case arose from an RTI application made by the Petitioners to disclose the names of the bank accountholders that Germany handed over to the Central Government. The previous Government adamantly refused to follow the directions of the Court to hand over to the Petitioners the names of individuals against whom investigations had been completed wholly or partially. Last month the Government handed over two sealed envelopes containing the names of the accountholders to the Court. The Court again directed that the names be handed over to the Petitioners. These names have not been made public by the Government, officially, till date. There is no reference to this direction in the ToR of the SIT either. The NDA Government could change policy in this regard as well and publicise the names contained in the sealed envelopes, as it would only be dutifully following the directions of the Court. Such a step would demonstrate the NDA Government's commitment to transparency as a real one going beyond mere public relations exercises. This case is also of great use for all RTI users and activists who receive rejection orders from Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities on the ground that contracts with private parties contain confidentiality clauses and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. In this case also the Government of India, under the United Progressive Alliance, refused to make the names of the accountholders public saying that Germany had handed over their names to Indian authorities under a tax agreement that contains a 'confidentiality' clause. The Apex Court examined the relevant clause of the treaty and came to the following conclusion: 1) that the tax agreement did not prohibit disclosure of information provided by one signatory to another if it was required in a judicial proceeding; and 2) that confidentiality clauses contained in international treaties and agreements are not to be interpreted as set in stone. Instead they must be tested against the concept and practice of the rule of law guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and most importantly the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the right to seek redress for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The confidentiality clause would be tolerated only if it matched any of the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for imposing reasonable restrictions on the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. As RTI is a deemed fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), it can also be restricted only on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) and the RTI Act but no other ground would be valid. Readers will recognise that the Indian Government signs bilateral or multilateral treaties and agreements in exercise of its sovereign functions. When confidentiality clauses contained in such agreements are subject to the fundamental right to free speech and expression and consequently RTI, confidentilaity clauses contained in commercial agreements with private parties that public authorities enter into during the routine course of government business must also be interpreted along the same lines. The mere existence of a 'confidentiality' clause in a contract with one or more private parties is not enough to reject a request for copies of the contract under the RTI Act. This is a landmark interpretation of the Apex Court and if applied in letter and spirit can open up to public scrutiny a whole range of contracts and agreements that the Government signs with private parties. Public-Private Partnership (PPPs) agreements would have to meet this test before the public authority concerned can refuse access to such agreements. I hope readers will watch with great interest how transparently the SIT will be functioning in the days to come. Kindly circulate this email widely. Thanks RamJethmalni-v-UnionofIndia-SCI-Jul11.pdf BlackMoney-SIT-ToR-May14.pdf
  8. While asking to different people of different villages, it was informed that the political people have reccomended the name of most of the rich people for issuance of Job card relating to implementation of Mahatama Gandhi compusury gramin Yojana scheme framed by the central government. The real and poor people of the rural village have been deprived from such facilities. works are being undertaken by machinaries instead of compulsory 100 days work. Even rich families are also getting Indira Awas benefit by political influence. Old age pension are not given to proper people, which needs CBI investgation by obtaing information throuigh RTI Act as we need a corrupt free nation as enshrined by the civil society.
  9. KARNATAKA Dear Sir, WHETHER THERE IS ANY FORUM TO REDRESS THE GRIEVANCIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS (UNDER SUSPENSION). NO RULES AND LAW APPLIES TO THEM. HON’BLE HIGH COURT APPLY ITS OWN RULES. THE OFFICERS ARE KEPT UNDER SUSPENSION FOR 4-5 YEARS. ARTICLES OF CHARGES BEING FILED AFTER 10-11 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUSPESION. ON APPROACHING THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED BY A SINGLE SENTENCE WITH A LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE SAME HON’BLE HIGH COURT. CAN ANY BODY ANTICIPATE JUSTICE FROM THAT SAME HON’BLE HIGH COURT. ON THE BASIS OF DEFENCE DISCLOSED IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE DOCUMENTS ARE TAMPERED, MANUPULATED AND CREATED. MY QUESTION IS WHETHER I AM ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LEGAL ADVICE. IF NOT IS THERE ANY LAW FIRM IS DARE ENOUGH TO FILE COMPLAINT IN RESPECT OF SUCH MANUPULATIONS AND FIGHT FOR SEPERATE FORUM. IF INTERESTED GET FULL DETAILS FROM ME AT xxx@yyy.zzz Dated 14.11.2008
  10. Accused of espionage, officer takes RTI route for probe info as reported by Abhinav Garg 2 Nov 2008 TNN Times of India NEW DELHI: A former intelligence officer facing trial in a case of espionage, has got Delhi police's special cell on the defensive through deft use of RTI Act. On his RTI plea, the Central Information Commission has directed special cell to spell out the criteria by which an officer is deemed to be an "expert'' in forensics and cyber crime or to examine electronic evidence. A Bench headed by the Chief Information Commisioner Wajahat Habibullah further ordered that Delhi police furnish the RTI applicant with a copy of guidelines/order, if any have been issued to the force for handling computer/electronic or cyber evidences during search and seizure by investigating officers. The directions came on a plea filed by a retired naval commander, Mukesh Saini who is currently being tried for offence of leaking sensitive national security data abroad, under the stringent sections of Official Secrets Act, besides certain sections of IPC. He was picked up by the special cell in 2006 and is accused of espionage while working as electronic security specialist in National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Since an overwhelming portion of evidence lined up against him is in electronic form, comprising hard disk, pen drive and computer floppies allegedly recovered from his office, the accused moved an RTI plea from his cell in Tihar, and sought from DCP special cell information on competence of cyber expert of the Cell. In his application, Saini demanded to know if inspector O P Shrivastav, who has gleaned evidence against him from hard disks and electronic records, is a government scientific expert or a private cyber forensic expert. Invoking the "life and liberty clause'' under RTI Act (which makes it mandatory for a public authority to furnish information within 48 hours), Saini also sought to know details of cyber forensic tools used by the Special Cell's cyber laboratory. Lastly, he claimed that during his stint with NSCS he helped draft a comprehensive guideline for handling cyber evidence during seizure, which was handed over to MHA for forwarding it to police forces across the country. Saini added this in his plea, seeking to know if such a guideline was being followed by cops. Predictably, his request for information was declined on the ground it fell under information exempted covered by section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, with Delhi police claiming this would "impede the process of investigation.'' His first appeal to Jt CP Karnail Singh yielded similar result, leaving Saini with little choice but to move CIC. His luck changed at CIC, which in its recent order noted, "since on basis of the inspectors report a criminal case has been launched against Mukesh Saini it is responsibility of the probe agency to justify why they have so deemed....it isn't understandable how providing this information would impede the investigations.'' Accused of espionage, officer takes RTI route for probe info-Delhi-Cities-The Times of India
  11. Appeal No.243/ICPB/2006 F.No.PBA/06/237 And Appeal No.244/ICPB/2006 F.No.PBA/06/238 December 27, 2006 The Government Officer interpreted during second appeal at CIC said that under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act the exemption from disclosure could only be claimed by CPIO only if any criminal investigation is pending and not under departmental proceedings. But deciding on the present case, the CIC upheld the decision of the Authority not to give information under RTI Act claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) considering the fact that the appellant is a government servant, the term “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) has to be interpreted in terms of the Vigilance Manual. The contention of the appellant in his appeals, rejoinders to the comments of the CPIO and during the hearing was: The decisions of CPIOs are totally non-speaking and unreasoned. The provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act have been wrongly applied by them without any elaboration or justification. This Section can be applied only if furnishing of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. A careful analysis of this Section would reveal that exemption from disclosure could be claimed only if any criminal investigation is pending. As far as the appellant is concerned, the CBI has already closed the case stating that no allegations could be proved against him and as such there is no criminal investigation is pending against him. Since no investigation is pending against the appellant, the question of “apprehension” or “prosecution” does not arise. The term “investigation” has not been defined in the RTI Act and therefore the definition given in Section 2 ( h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be adopted . As per that Section “investigation” includes all proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence by a police officer and in terms of Thus, from this decision, it is apparent that this Commission has not viewed the term ‘investigation’ as used in Section 8(1)(h) to apply exclusively to criminal investigation as propounded by the appellant in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that only when criminal investigation is pending, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) could be applied, has to fail. Section 2(n) of the said Code, offense means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. Therefore, investigation means criminal investigation and since in the present case since the CBI has closed the case, the question of any criminal investigation pending against the appellant does not arise to apply the provision of Section 8(1)(h). A Departmental enquiry can not be considered to be an investigation in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as this Section has not used the term “investigation” simplicitor. It has to be read with the following terms “Prosecution “apprehension” or “prosecution of offenders”. If it is done so, it will be apparent that the term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) refers only to criminal investigation and does not cover fact finding in house enquiries. Since there is no pending investigation against the appellant, the question of appellant being offender who has to be apprehended or prosecuted does not arise. Investigation being a well known legal term, falls squarely within the confines of criminal investigation and in the absence of any other definition provided in the RTI Act, it has to be so construed in applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h). In service jurisprudence, there is nothing like an investigation even during the disciplinary proceedings. Further, in view of the dismissal of SLP, there is a specific bar on the Department to initiate any proceedings against the appellant contrary to the final report of the CBI. Thus, not only there is any criminal investigation pending against the appellant, the Department cannot also initiate any disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the contention of the CPIOs that pending disciplinary proceeding, being a matter of investigation, the information could not be disclosed, cannot be sustained. Instead of passing a speaking order and without giving any details of any investigations pending against the appellant, the CPIOs or AAs could not have come to the conclusion that furnishing of the documents sought for by the appellant would affect investigation. Considering the object of the RTI Act that there should be transparency in the discharge of functions of public authorities and that every citizen should have the right to access the information under the control of public authorities, the Commission should direct the CPIOs to provide the documents sought for by the appellant. The stand of the CPIOs and AAs in their respective orders and the comments and during the hearing is: According to the CPIO/AA, FCI, since the subject matter is under the examination with the CVC/Ministry and DOP&T, it assumes the status of investigation and therefore covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the comments to the appeal, the CPIO, FCI has stated that since the appellant has sought for correspondence etc. with other agencies, the same could not be furnished without the consent of these agencies as required under Section 11 of RTI Act. According to the Department, while serving as Sr. Regional Manager, FCI, the appellant was allegedly involved in a number of corrupt practices and irregularities and accordingly investigations were initiated by the Vigilance Cell of the Department. As on date, there are three disciplinary cases pending against the appellant besides matters pending in CAT, Chandigarh and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The findings of CBI have not found favour with the Department and investigation to the financial loss on account of irregularities committed by the appellant are pending. The term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted in the manner in which the appellant has tried to interpret. While interpreting any term, the concept of ‘purpose and object’ or the ‘reason and spirit; should be kept in mind. The textual interpretation should match the contextual. Section 5 of Cr. PC clearly specifies that specific provisions spell out in other Act would override the provisions of Cr. PC in identical matters. Since admittedly the impugned matter is related to investigations under the Departmental proceedings as set out in the relevant Act, rules and procedures governing members of an All India Service, the definition given in Cr. PC cannot be applied in the present case. The contention of the appellant that with the withdrawal of the SLP and the consequent dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court bars further departmental action is not sustainable. As per the rules and legal provisions, once CBI enquiry is over and if the Department differs with the report of the CBI, further action is required to be taken as per para 3.16 of the CVC Manual. The CVC, to which the matter was referred, has advised for initiating disciplinary proceedings and therefore the Department of Personal, being the cadre controlling authority, would initiate appropriate action, if so decided. The High Court order dated 29.7.2005 only bars the department from conducting parallel investigation with the CBI and since CBI has already submitted its report, there is no bar in proceeding with the Departmental action and on so mentioning before the Supreme Court, the SLP was allowed to be withdrawn. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong on the part of the appellant to contend that no criminal and/or disciplinary case is pending gainst him. DECISION: The CPIOs and AAs have declined to furnish the information applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which reads: According to the appellant, relying on Cr.PC, the term “investigation” would mean criminal investigation which may result in apprehension or prosecution of offenders and since the CBI has given a clean chit to the appellant, no criminal investigation is pending and departmental proceedings cannot be considered to be investigation to deny documents sought for by him applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. It is true that the term “investigation” has not been defined in the RTI Act. When a statute does not define a term, it is permissible to adopt the definition given in some other statute. If different definitions are given in different statutes for a particular term, then the one which could be more relevantly adoptable should be adopted taking into account the object and purpose of the Statute in which the definition is not available. It is not necessary to confine oneself to only one definition as propounded by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant is a government official and is therefore, bound by the service Rules, which inter alia include the provisions in the Vigilance Manual. As a matter of fact, he got a stay from the CAT only on the basis of the provisions in the Vigilance Manual challenging that in terms of the Manual, departmental investigation cannot go on simultaneously with CBI investigation. His stand before the CAT was that even issue of show cause notice amounted to investigation, while in the present appeals, his stand is that investigation means criminal investigation. One cannot interpret the provisions of a statute according to his own convenience. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant is a government servant, the term “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) has to be interpreted in terms of the Vigilance Manual. I am extracting certain portions of Chapter 4 of the Manual, (2005 Edition) from which it could be seen that the terms “investigation” and “enquiry” have been used analogously, to indicate that investigation need not necessarily mean criminal investigation. From the above extract, it can be seen that the term “investigation” in respect of government officials could mean both investigation by the CBI, which could be termed as criminal investigation as well as investigation by the Department. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that “investigation” means only criminal investigation. In this connection, I may refer to the Division Bench decision of this Commission in Shri Gobind Jha Vs Army Hqrs. (CIC/80/2006/ 00039 dated 1.6.2006). In that case, the appellant sought for various information including a copy of the report of investigation carried out on the basis of his complaint. The CPIO and AA declined to furnish a copy of the report applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. Examining the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, the Division Bench observed - Thus, from this decision, it is apparent that this Commission has not viewed the term ‘investigation’ as used in Section 8(1)(h) to apply exclusively to criminal investigation as propounded by the appellant in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that only when criminal investigation is pending, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) could be applied, has to fail. The second limb of the contention of the appellant is that the Department is incompetent to initiate disciplinary proceeding after withdrawal of the SLP. As far as this contention is concerned, I would like to make it abundantly clear that it is not only beyond the scope of the proceedings before the Commission to examine whether the Department is competent to take disciplinary action or not but it is also beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, when the Department has stated that three disciplinary proceedings are pending against the appellant, my examination will be restricted only to decide whether, the information sought by the appellant could be denied on the ground that investigation is pending. According to the Department, on the basis of the advice of the CVC, the matter is pending with the Department of Personnel. Any disciplinary process till such time a charge sheet is issued or the case is closed, has to be treated as a matter under enquiry/investigation, to be covered under Section 8(1)(h). In Shri D.L.Chandhok Vs. Central Wharehousing Corporation (Appeal No.121/ICPP/ 2006 dated 9.10.06), this Commission has held that - In the present case, it is evident from the applications of the appellant themselves that he has sought copies of various documents connected with disciplinary/other proceedings against him. Therefore, I am of the view that the CPIOs and AAs have correctly applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) to decline to provide copies of the documents sought for by the appellant. Before parting with the decision, I may also point out that the stand of the CPIO, FCI in his comments that the provisions of Section 11 are attracted in furnishing correspondence with other agencies is not correct. Section 11 would be attracted only when information relating to a third parry is sought for disclosure and not when the correspondence relates to the applicant himself. In view of my finding that the CPIOs have correctly applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act in declining to furnish copies of the documents sought for by the appellant, the appeals stand dismissed. The case was decided by Mrs. Padma Balasubramanian, Information Commissioner on 27th December 2006.
  12. The CIC has clarified that Section 8, 1, h) is only applicable if the matter is under investigation or if information disclosure will hamper the investigation. In the same order, CIC has ruled that a mater being sub-judice is not ground for denial of information. The exact extract is: Provisions of Section 8(1) (h) can be applied only if the matter is under investigation or the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. In the present case, the investigation has already been completed and LIC has also acted on the basis of the investigation report. Therefore, provisions of Section 8(1) (h) are not applicable. In so far as the matter being sub-judice is concerned, this Commission has, time and again, held that a matter being under sub-judice is not a ground to deny the information unless covered under any other exempted provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this, I direct the CPIO to furnish a copy of the investigation report by blocking the names of witnesses. The statements/affidavits given by third parties need not be furnished as the same had been given in confidence. Full decision can be viewed at: http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_28052007_10.pdf
  13. 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 DECISION 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. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner
  14. Central Information Commission Decision No. 293 /IC(A)/2006 F.Nos.CIC/MA/A/2006/00386 Dated, the 20th Sep., 2006 Name of the Appellant : Shri V. Ramakrishnan, Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise-III, 121, Nangambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034. Name of the Public Authority : Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, 1st & 2nd Floor, Hotel Samrat,Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021. DECISION The appellant had asked for certain information relating to investigations of a case. The CPIO provided a detailed reply and furnished partial information while the remaining information was denied u/s 8(1) (d) on the ground that the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. In view of the above, the CPIO has correctly applied exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner Download the decision from Download segment.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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