The Madras High Court has held that though the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has been exempted from the operation of the RTI Act by G.O.Ms.No.158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated August 26, 2008, however, as per the proviso to Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), such exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner, the State of Tamil Nadu, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission.

The Single Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held, “The first question for consideration is the effect of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has been exempted from the operation of the RTI Act by G.O.Ms.No.158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.08.2008, issued under Section 24(4). However, the proviso to Section 24(4) makes it clear that such exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.”

State Public Prosecutor R.Johnsathyan represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel C. Vigneshwaran represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

By the impugned order, the Public Information Officer of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was directed to furnish the information sought by S.R. Jangid, IPS, Retired DGP, second respondent, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), after masking the names and other particulars of the other officers concerned. The respondent Officer submitted an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking information relating to the detailed enquiry conducted by the DVAC. He sought copies of the enquiry reports, the queries raised by the Government, the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer and all documents collected during the enquiry.

The Public Information Officer rejected the request by order, invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The first appeal filed by the second respondent was also rejected. Thereafter, the second respondent filed a second appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. During the proceedings before the Information Commission, the Public Information Officer furnished an item-wise reply. Thereafter, the Commission directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information and copies of the documents sought by the second respondent. It was also directed that the names and other particulars of the other two officers be masked. The information was directed to be furnished within 45 days.

Reasoning

Considering that the Detailed Enquiry related to the allegations of corruption investigated by the DVAC, the Bench held that Section 24(4) cannot be relied upon as a complete bar to the information sought by the second respondent. “The request has to be considered with reference to the exemptions specifically provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act”, it stated.

The Bench further noted that no specific threat, circumstance or other material had been stated to support such an apprehension and held that a general assertion that disclosure may affect the safety of witnesses or third parties is not sufficient to attract Section 8(1)(g).

“In the present case, therefore, the State has not established that disclosure of the names of the third parties would endanger their life or physical safety. It has also not shown, in respect of each such person, that disclosure would reveal a confidential source of information or assistance given for enforcement purposes. Therefore, Section 8(1)(g) cannot be invoked as a blanket ground for withholding the names and particulars of all third parties”, it held.

As per the Bench, the direction issued by the Information Commission to furnish the information and copies of the documents sought by the respondent Officer, subject to masking the names and other particulars of the other officers concerned, was consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act.

Holding that the Officer was entitled to the information relating to the Detailed Enquiry conducted against him, subject to the limited exemptions recognised by the RTI Act, the Bench upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission.

Cause Title: State Of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (Case No.: WP No. 22237 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: State Public Prosecutor R. Johnsathyan, Govt Advocate N. Palanivel

Respondent: Standing Counsel C. Vigneshwaran, Advocates Nithyaesh Nataraj,, Vaibhav R.Venkatesh

Click here to read/download Order



Tags: