Full Judgment
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement pronounced on:16.09.2013 + W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SECURITY AND ANR Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Sanjiv Saxena, Advs. versus HARENDER Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Shanmuga Patro, Adv. with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.
The respondent before this Court is working with Aviation Research Centre, which is part of the Cabinet Secretariat. The respondent applied to the CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat seeking photocopies of the proceedings and minutes of the DCPs held from 2000 to 2009 including of the file notings and correspondence led to the above-referred DPCs. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat responded by claiming that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short „RTI Act‟) did not apply to the Cabinet Secretariat. EA-II Section, since it was included in the Second Schedule appended to the RTI Act. The view taken by the CPIO was also maintained by the first appellate authority. Being aggrieved the respondent approached the Central Information Commission (for short „CIC‟) by way of a second appeal. Allowing the appeal the CIC inter alia held as under:
“4. During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated the same arguments. It is a fact that the public authority from which the information has been sought has been included in the second schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would apply to it. However, in terms of first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation will be provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule Caste alleged that the public authority has been extremely unfair to him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons thereby violating his human right. In the special circumstances, of this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as covered by the proviso to Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act and allow the information to be disposed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.”
2. Being aggrieved from the order of the CIC, Directorate General of Security, Office of Director, Aviation Research Centre and CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat are before this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. Section 24 of the RTI Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations. - (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government. Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:”
4. A perusal of the Second Schedule which enumerates the intelligence and security organisations established by the Central Government which are in Section 24 of the Act would show that Aviation Research Centre is included in the said list at serial No.7. Admittedly the respondent was working in the Aviation Research Centre only. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to the aforesaid organisation except in the matters relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by the petitioner pertained to various DPCs held from 2000 to 2009 and such information is neither an information related to allegations of corruption nor to human rights violation. No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing supply of said information to the respondent.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove the impugned order dated 29.3.2011 of the CIC is quashed. However, it is made clear that quashing of the aforesaid order will not come in the way of the respondent availing of such remedy as are open to him under the service law applicable to him or any other law, for the time being in force, for ventilation of his grievance. The writ petition stands disposed of. SEPTEMBER 16 2013 b’nesh V.K. JAIN, J.