New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with an order of Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is an exempted organisation under the Right to Information Act.
“RAW is an exempted organisation under the RTI. Unless the nature of the information sought relates to human rights or corruption-related issues, information is not liable to be disclosed,” read the CIC order. Justice Prathiba M Singh said, “In the present petition, the nature of the information sought, i.e., the residences where the subject person who was the head of RAW which is a security agency, would not be covered in the exception.”
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with, Justice Singh said in a judgement on April 26.
The finding of the CIC was that th Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is covered by Section 24 as an exempt organization and no case of human rights or corruption is made out in the
present case to attract the exception.
The petitioner Nisha Priya Bhatia had challenged the order of October 30, 2017, by which the CIC dismissed her appeal and held that the RTI applicant is not entitled to get the information sought.
The RTI applicant moved an application on January 23, 2012, and sought “Certified copies of applications for allotment of government accommodation made by S.K. Tripathi; IPS (UP; 1972) between 1986 to present, from the Directorate of Estates, Government of India.”
It was alleged that no reply was received from the CPIO. Thus, an appeal was filed to the First Appellate Authority.
However, no reply was received from the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, a second appeal was preferred by the CIC.
It was the case of the Petitioner that a letter on May 8, 2017, was written by G.P. Sarkar, Deputy Director of Estates to the Registrar of CIC requesting closure of Petitioner’s RTI application.
Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the CIC in the second appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner alleged.
The High Court noted that Section 24 of the Right to Information Act provides that the said Act does not apply to the security and intelligence organizations specified in the
Second Schedule of the Act.
RAW is one of the organizations specified in the Second Schedule. However, the first proviso to Section 24 provides an exception to the exemption provided in Section 24 if the information sought pertains to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
