Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to access crucial information from government bodies. However, sometimes a public authority might try to deny information based on changes in the law that happened *after* you filed your application. This case highlights a critical point: if you filed your RTI before a department was added to the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, they cannot simply refuse your application based on that new status. This is a vital lesson for anyone seeking information from sensitive agencies like the CBI.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular case, an individual who was a prisoner at the Mumbai Central Prison filed an RTI application with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They were seeking copies of important documents related to their time in police lock-up. Specifically, the applicant wanted to see entries from the Lock up Diary, the Case Diary, and the Station Diary that pertained to them. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the CBI, however, refused to provide any of this information. The PIO’s justification was that the CBI had been included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which lists organizations that are exempt from certain provisions of the Act.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the CBI’s PIO was a complete refusal to disclose any information. The reason cited was the CBI’s inclusion in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act. This meant the PIO believed they were no longer obligated to entertain the RTI request. The applicant, finding this response unsatisfactory, pursued the matter further, leading to a hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), a crucial detail emerged concerning the timeline. The RTI application filed prisoner was dated 19th May 2011. However, the CBI was only included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act with effect from 9th June 2011. This temporal discrepancy was central to the applicant’s argument. The CIC carefully considered this fact. The CBI’s representative also presented their side, stating that the applicant was an accused in the Kandahar Plane Hijack case and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. They argued that the CBI was still actively investigating this case because several other accused individuals had not yet been apprehended. The CBI contended that disclosing the requested information at this stage could potentially hinder their ongoing investigation or the prosecution of other offenders.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) acknowledged the arguments presented sides. While the CIC agreed with the CBI’s stance that the information sought could indeed impede an investigation or prosecution, they did not dismiss the application outright based on the Second Schedule status. Instead, the CIC rejected the appeal with the respondent’s view that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. This section states that there is no obligation to provide information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The significance of this decision lies not in allowing the CBI to refuse, but in clarifying that even though the CBI was later added to the Second Schedule, they could not use this as a blanket refusal for applications filed *before* that change. However, the information itself was still protected under the investigative exemption.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Timing is Everything: Pay close attention to the date you file your RTI application. If a public authority is added to the Second Schedule of the RTI Act after your application is filed, they generally cannot refuse your request solely on that basis. They must consider the application as if the change hadn’t happened yet.
- Lesson 2: Understand Section 8 Exemptions: Even if an authority cannot refuse an application based on its Second Schedule status, the information itself might still be exempt under other provisions of the RTI Act, such as Section 8(1)(h) for ongoing investigations. Be prepared for this possibility.
- Lesson 3: Be Specific in Your Request: While this case involved sensitive information, clearly stating what documents you are seeking helps the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the CIC understand the nature of your request and the potential impact of its disclosure.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State exactly what information you are requesting. Be precise about the documents, dates, and details.
- Mention the Date of Application: Ensure your application is dated. This is crucial, especially if there are legal changes affecting the authority.
- Pay the Fee and Submit: Attach the required fee (usually ₹10 via postal order or demand draft) and submit your application to the PIO of the relevant department.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, please provide details of all station diary entries, case diary entries, and lock-up diary entries pertaining to my detention at [Police Station Name/Lock-up Name] between the dates of [Start Date] and [End Date]. Please also provide certified copies of these entries if available.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability. While certain exemptions exist to protect sensitive government functions like investigations, the process of seeking information must be fair and follow the law as it stood at the time of the application. Always remember to check the dates and understand the various sections of the RTI Act to effectively exercise your right to information.
