The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) stands exempted from rigours of RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 (Act not to apply to certain organizations) thereof.The issue had arisen when the Appellant appeared for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by IB in 2017, but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates....
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) stands exempted from rigours of RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 (Act not to apply to certain organizations) thereof.
The issue had arisen when the Appellant appeared for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by IB in 2017, but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Some irregularities with respect to the exam were reported in newspapers. The same led the Appellant to file an RTI application seeking information regarding marks, certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key.
In response thereto, the IB stated that the information sought by the Appellant was exempt from disclosure under Section 24, RTI Act. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a complaint with CIC.
The CIC passed an order rejecting the Appellant’s RTI application, stating that as the IB was specified under Second Schedule of RTI Act, it was exempt from its rigours. It was further stated that the information sought did not pertain to categories for which even exempted institutions must disclose information under proviso to Section 24, RTI Act (human rights violations and/or allegations of corruption).
The Appellant brought a challenge to the CIC order before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Bench.
Before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, Advocate Sudhir Sharma argued on behalf of the Appellant that in light of news articles regarding irregularities in the exam, corruption was apparent.
The Bench dismissed the Appeal, holding that the IB was exempt from rigours of RTI Act. It was also observed that the information sought by the Appellant did not fall under categories carved out as exceptions under Section 24 RTI Act.
On the aspect of corruption, the Bench noted:
“Furthermore, unsubstantiated submissions; and bald averments alleging corruption cannot be made the bedrock of a direction from this Court to an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act.”
Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate appeared for the Appellant
Mr. Rahul Sharma, CGSC with Mr. Ayush Bhatt, Advocate appeared for UOI
Case Title: Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991