PIO Must State Cogent Reasons Before Denying Info Under S. 8(1)(H): Delhi High Court

New Delhi, 8 Feb 2021:

The Delhi High Court has ruled that whenever information is denied by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the Right To Information Act, cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority to show how and why investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by supplying it (Amit Kumar Srivastava vs CIC).

Under Section 8(1)(h), information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders is exempted from disclosure.

"Cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question," the Court stated.

The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Jayant Nath.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

The petitioner had sought details with respect to cases which were registered against certain public servants under IPC/Prevention of Corruption Act.

A specific query was put seeking names of officers who were directed to support the investigation of investigating agency.

Opining that matter was covered under Section 8(1) (h) RTI Act, the CIC dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner as it noted that the proceedings initiated by CBI were pending in the appropriate criminal court.

It was also recorded that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were also are pending before the concerned authority.

The High Court placed reliance on a series of decisions on interpretation of Section 8(1)(h), to hold that the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation.

"What follows from the legal position is that where a public authority takes recourse to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation. The word ‘impede’ would mean anything that would hamper or interfere with the investigation or prosecution of the offender," the Court said.

The Court noted that CIC denied information after opining that an enquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report from the investigating/enquiry officer.

However, there was no attempt made whatsoever to show as to how giving the information sought would hamper the investigation and the on-going disciplinary proceedings, the Court remarked.

"The impugned order concludes that a charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case by the CBI but in the disciplinary proceedings the matter is still pending. Based on this fact simplicitor the impugned order accepts the plea of the respondent and holds that the Section 8 (1) (h) is attracted and the respondents are justified in not giving information to the petitioner. No reasons are spelt out as to how the investigation or prosecution will be hampered," the order stated.

The Court concluded that the CIC had taken a stand which was contrary to the settled legal position and remanded the matter back to CIC for a fresh consideration.

The CIC was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Amit Bansal.

Reference: Amit Kumar Shrivastava vs CIC, High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 3701/2018, D/d 5.2.2021 Bar And Bench