The Madras High Court(MHC) has refused to set aside a court order that directed the Special Branch-CID(SBCID) to serve the enquiry report done against retired Director General of Police S R Jangid, to the complainant under the Right to Information(RTI) Act.
The Madras High Court(MHC) has refused to set aside a court order that directed the Special Branch-CID(SBCID) to serve the enquiry report done against retired Director General of Police S R Jangid, to the complainant under the Right to Information(RTI) Act.
The first division bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and SBCID. Further, the bench directed the SB-CID to serve a copy of the enquiry report to the complainant within four weeks in compliance with the earlier court order.
The bench upheld the single judge’s order that section 24(4) of the RTI act is not exempting SB-CID from furnishing information under the act, “provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations”.
Petitioner V Vidhya moved the MHC seeking to direct the State and SB-CID to serve the enquiry report done against the retired DGP in a complaint lodged by her.
According to the petitioner, a real estate promoter KC Bose, who is a close associate of retired DGP S R Jangid defrauded and cheated her to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs by producing fraudulent documents. In 2009, colluded with the real estate promoter, Jangid booked foisted cases against the petitioner and incarcerated her, said the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, in 2011 the petitioner represented before DIG intelligence and lodged a complaint against the retired DGP, on the allegations of corruption and human rights violation, to conduct an enquiry.
Later, the complainant moved the Public Information Officer(PIO) under the RTI act seeking to furnish the enquiry report of SB-CID in the complaint given by her. However, the SB-CID refused to furnish the report as it is a security and intelligence organization, hence the RTI act shall not apply to them.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the MHC seeking to furnish the enquiry report.
The additional advocate general (AAG) J Ravindran appeared for SB-CID, contended that the report of the SBCID is a classified document as the SB-CID is an organization exempt from the application of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2007. The exemption, according to the State, is absolute and unfettered and no exception can be made in that regard, AAG added.
However, the single judge negatived AAG’s submission and observed that section 24(4) of the RTI act will be applicable to SB-CID as the allegation pertains to corruption and human rights violations. Further, the judge directed the SB-CID to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner within four weeks. Aggrieved by this order, the SB-CID preferred to appeal before the MHC.
