Information On 'Human Rights Violations' Under RTI Act Would Not Include Service Matter Disputes: Delhi HC [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court, last week, set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), wherein the latter had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to provide one of its officers information relating to the status of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

The CIC had, in the impugned order, opined that the CBI officer had the “right to know about his own case”, despite the exemption granted to CBI under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court had now been approached by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the CBI appealing against this order.

The employee, Mr. Ram Kumar Agrawal had challenged the Appeal relying on exemptions to Section 24 of the Act, which excludes all intelligence and security organizations listed in the second schedule from the purview of the Act. He had made reference to the proviso to Section 24 (1), which clarifies that information related to corruption and human rights violation would not be exempt from disclosure even in cases of intelligence and security organizations like CBI.

Mr. Agrawal had contended that the information sought by him pertained to the disciplinary proceedings against him, which had commenced in 2011 but were not being proceeded with. Meanwhile, his promotion had been withheld due to pendency of these proceedings. This, he said, caused him immense distress and fell within the scope of the expression “human rights violations” as used in the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru, however, opined that service matter disputes cannot be termed as "violation of human rights", explaining, "The expression "Human Rights Violation" as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations."

He further referred to a judgment passed by a coordinate bench of the Court in the case of Director General and Anr v. Harender, wherein it was held that "no violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc."

The Court therefore set aside the impugned order.