CBI Not Exempted Under RTI Act, Must Provide Info On Corruption And Human Rights Violations Except 'Sensitive Investigation': Delhi HC

Rejecting the argument that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempted from provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has said that the probe agency must provide information on corruption and human rights violations, except in investigations which are sensitive in nature.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though CBI's name is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire enactment is not applicable to the agency.

“The proviso to Section 24 permits information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation to be made available to the applicant and the same cannot be included in the exception provided to organizations mentioned in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act,” the court said.

However, Justice Prasad observed that in appropriate cases, it is always open for CBI to establish that the information sought for regarding a particular investigation is sensitive in nature and on considering the nature of sensitivity involved, it is always open for its CPIO to refuse grant of such information.

The court made the observations while upholding an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the CPIO of CBI to provide information sought by IFS Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi in relation to his complaint over alleged corruption in certain purchases at the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS).

The CIC order was challenged by the CPIO of CBI on the ground that since the name of the probe agency figures in the Second Schedule, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to it.

Rejecting CBI's contention, the court observed that Chaturvedi had levelled allegations regarding corruption in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution at AIIMS which does not deal with any kind of sensitive investigation.

“In the absence of anything on record to demonstrate that investigation regarding malpractices in purchase of cleaner disinfectants and fogging solution in JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi will expose the officers and other persons involved in the investigation which can endanger their life or would jeopardize any other serious investigation, this Court is not in a position to accept the argument of the CBI in the facts of this case,” the court said.

Disposing of the plea, the court observed that there was nothing on record other than stating that providing information regarding inquiries or investigation will lead to public persons interfering with the matters which are within the province of CBI.

“The law imposes on the Petitioner the duty to inquire if such disclosure are permitted to public at large, then it would result in extending powers to the general public which even the judiciary does not possess,” the court said.

Chaturvedi, who was posted on central deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS, Delhi from June 2012 to August 2014, had sought documents regarding the investigation done by CBI in a corruption complaint filed in 2014.

He had allegedly unearthed a scam in purchase of disinfectants in the Trauma Centre of the AIIMS and found that a certain Assistant Store Officer had purchased some products from the firm belonging to his son and daughter without tender and at rates higher than available at other centres of AIIMS.

Since his complaint "resulted in a very substantial blow" to his career as he was awarded Zero in the Annual Performance Year Report by then Director AIIMS for the year 2015-16, Chaturvedi in 2017 filed the application seeking information under the RTI Act. However, the central agency refused to disclose the information sought.

On November 25, 2019, the CIC directed CPIO of CBI to provide the information. On July 19, 2022, a coordinate bench had stayed the CIC order after finding "merit" in the contentions raised by the CBI that material gathered in the course of investigation would not be liable to disclosed under the Right To Information Act and that CIC is only answerable to the Central Vigilance Commission.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP-CBI with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Mr. Abhishek Batra, Mr. Ripu Daman Sharma, Mr. Vashisht Rao, Mr. Syamantak Modgill and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Manoj Khanna, Ms. Shweta Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Chandel, Advocates

Title: CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127

Click Here To Read Order