Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed the inquiry report of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exception under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hence, cannot be disclosed.

• Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission & Ors.

What is the Background of Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission & Ors Case?

• CBI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against a former officer of Indian Audit & Accounts Service after investigating some illegal conducts in National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL).
• The CBI contended that the petitioner has shown favors towards NSEL
• The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act seeking information related to enquiry reports, action taken reports and several other reports of investigation done by CBI.
• Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) dismissed his application stating that such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
• And the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected his appeal on the dismissal of order of CPIO.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Delhi HC stated that “Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation revealing a copy of the entire report of the CBI”.
  • Further, if such information falls into the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process.
• Hence, the court dismissed the plea.

What is Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act?

• About:
  • Section 8 of the RTI Act enumerates various grounds on which a public authority can refuse to disclose information.
  • Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act recognizes the balance between the right to information and the need to protect certain information to ensure the effective functioning of law enforcement agencies.
• Objective:
  • Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act acknowledges that there are instances where the disclosure of certain information could hamper ongoing investigations or jeopardize the identification and prosecution of offenders.
  • It recognizes that there are situations where revealing information prematurely could aid individuals under investigation, allowing them to evade or tamper with evidence.
• Legal Framework:
  • Under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, there is no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
• Duty of Public Authority:
  • In cases where a public authority denies access to information under this provision, they are required to provide a clear and specific justification for their decision.
  • The denial should be based on a reasonable assessment of the potential harm that could arise from the disclosure of the information in question.

What are the Landmark Cases under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act?

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (2008):
  • The Delhi HC held that “Section 8, being a restriction on a fundamental right to information, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself”.
• B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court (2011):
  • The Delhi HC gave the following observations:
    • The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.
    • A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act.
    • The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act.
• Union of India v. Manjit Singh Bali (2018):
  • The Delhi HC held that “In order to deny information under Clause (h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, it must be established that the information sought is one which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders”.
• Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. CIC, New Delhi (2021):
  • The Delhi HC held that “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”.