RAW exempted from RTI Act unless information sought pertains to human rights violation, corruption: HC
The finding of the CIC was that RAW is covered by Section 24 as an exempt organisation and no case of human rights or corruption is made out in the applicant's case to attract the exception.
3 min read
Appearing for the Delhi police, special public prosecutor Amit Prasad said that despite being asked to give his statement, Wasim had so far not cooperated in making a statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (File) The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is an organisation “specifically” exempted under the RTI Act and unless the information sought pertains to human rights or corruption-related issues, it can’t be disclosed.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh in its April 26 order observed, “RAW is an organisation which is specifically mentioned in the…Schedule to the RTI Act. It is an exempt organisation. Unless the nature of information sought relates to human rights or corruption related issues, information is not liable to be disclosed.”
The HC was hearing a plea challenging an October 30, 2017 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had dismissed an RTI applicant’s plea holding that she was not entitled to get the information sought. The applicant had sought certified copies of allotment of government accommodation to an IPS officer from 1986 until now.
The finding of the CIC was that RAW is covered by Section 24 as an exempt organisation and no case of human rights or corruption is made out in the applicant’s case to attract the exception.
The HC pursued through Section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which provides that the Act does not apply to the security and intelligence organisations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act. The court noted that RAW is one of the organisations specified in the Second Schedule.
The court further said that the “first proviso” to Section 24 provides an exception to exemption provided in section 24, if the information sought pertains to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
Justice Singh thereafter observed, “In the present petition, the nature of the information sought, i.e., the residences where the subject person who was the head of RAW which is a security agency, would not be covered in the exemption. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with.”
The court also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Central Information Commission and observed that the words “corruption” and “human rights” have to be interpreted narrowly.
You May Like
Photos
