Introduction

The case of CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (CPIO) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. SANJEEV CHATURVEDI (2024 DHC 776) adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on January 30, 2024, marks a significant milestone in the interpretation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act vis-à-vis intelligence agencies. The dispute centers around the applicability of the RTI Act to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), particularly concerning the disclosure of information related to corruption allegations.

Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bureau of Investigation through Mr. Anupam S. Sharma and other CBI officials.
• Respondent: Sanjeev Chaturvedi, former Chief Vigilance Officer at AIIMS, New Delhi, represented by Mr. Manoj Khanna and team.

Key Issues:

• Whether the RTI Act applies to the CBI, an organization listed in the Second Schedule of the Act.
• Whether information pertaining to corruption allegations can be disclosed by CBI under the RTI Act despite its inclusion in the Second Schedule.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court held that the provisions of the RTI Act are applicable to the CBI concerning information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Despite the CBI being listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which generally exempts certain organizations from the Act's provisions, the court clarified that Section 24's proviso permits the disclosure of information pertaining to corruption and human rights allegations. Consequently, the CBI was directed to provide the requested information to the respondent, Sanjeev Chaturvedi.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases that shaped its reasoning:

• CPIO, Cpio, Intelligence Bureau Petitioner v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi S (2017): This case established that the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act allows for the disclosure of information related to corruption and human rights violations, even for organizations listed in the Second Schedule.
• Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Intelligence Bureau (2019): This case emphasized that while Section 24(1) permits the RTI Act to apply to corruption and human rights violation information, Section 8 exemptions must still be considered.
• Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr. (2018): The Division Bench reaffirmed that Section 24 does not provide a blanket exemption and that information related to corruption allegations is accessible under the RTI Act.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into the interpretation of Section 24 of the RTI Act, particularly focusing on the proviso that carves out an exception for information related to corruption and human rights violations. While the CBI is categorically listed in the Second Schedule—typically excluding it from RTI obligations—the proviso explicitly permits the disclosure of specific types of information. The court held that:

• Applicability of Proviso: The proviso to Section 24 overrides the general exclusion for organizations listed in the Second Schedule when the information sought pertains to corruption allegations or human rights violations.
• Scope of Information: The information requested by the respondent related to corruption in AIIMS' procurement processes falls squarely within the scope permitted for disclosure under the proviso.
• Sensitivity of Information: The court acknowledged the CBI's argument about the sensitivity of its investigations but found no substantial evidence in this case to deem the information as excessively sensitive or prejudicial.

The court reiterated that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability, especially in matters of public interest such as corruption. Therefore, unless exceptional circumstances justify withholding information, the provisions favor disclosure.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the transparency of intelligence and investigative agencies in India:

• Enhanced Accountability: Agencies like the CBI are mandated to comply with RTI requests related to corruption and human rights issues, fostering greater accountability.
• Precedent for Future Cases: The clear interpretation of Section 24's proviso sets a strong precedent, limiting the scope of exemptions for organizations in the Second Schedule.
• Empowerment of Citizens: Citizens and organizations can leverage the RTI Act more effectively to obtain information on public institutions' integrity and operational transparency.

Moreover, the judgment balances the need for transparency with the protection of genuinely sensitive information, ensuring that RTI provisions are not misused while maintaining the sanctity of critical investigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

The RTI Act empowers Indian citizens to access information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Section 24 of the RTI Act

Section 24 deals with the exclusion of certain organizations from the purview of the RTI Act. Specifically, it lists intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government. However, it contains a proviso that allows for the disclosure of information if it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

Second Schedule of the RTI Act

This schedule enumerates organizations that are generally exempt from the RTI Act's provisions. It includes intelligence and security agencies like the CBI, Intelligence Bureau (IB), etc.

Proviso to Section 24

The proviso serves as an exception to the exclusion clause, permitting the disclosure of specific types of information even from organizations listed in the Second Schedule, notably information related to corruption and human rights violations.

Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)

The CPIO is the designated official responsible for handling RTI requests within a public authority, ensuring compliance with the RTI Act's provisions.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's judgment in CPIO CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi reinforces the principle that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for ensuring transparency in public institutions, including intelligence agencies like the CBI. By interpreting Section 24's proviso to permit disclosure of information related to corruption allegations, the court has struck a balance between the need for confidentiality in sensitive operations and the public's right to know in matters of significant public interest.

This decision not only empowers citizens to hold powerful institutions accountable but also sets a clear legal benchmark for future RTI litigations involving intelligence and investigative agencies.