NCLAT: Security to Become Part of Liquidation Estate if Creditor Fails to Deposit Amount in 90 Days  ||  NCLAT: To Reject Application u/s 9 of IBC Reflection of Genuine Pre Existing Dispute Sufficient  ||  NCLAT: Can’t Terminate Lease Hold Rights in Favor of CD During Moratorium Period  ||  NCLT Kochi: As Per IBBI Regulations, Replaced Liquidator Entitled to Minimum 2 Lakh Rupees  ||  Del. HC: Participation in Arbitral Proc. Doesn’t Imply Acceptance of Arbitrator’s Unilateral Appoin.  ||  P&H HC: Measured Legal Response Necessitates Vigilance at Point of Entry  ||  Ker. HC: There is No Personal Law in India Applicable to Christians Recognizing Adoption  ||  SC: Protection under TP Act Not Available to if Party Knew about Pending Litigation  ||  Supreme Court: BCI Has No Authority to Interfere with Legal Education  ||  SC: Party Having No Privity of Contract with Service Provider Can’t be Called ‘Consumer’ under CP Act    

Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs. CPIO, Under Secretary (Ad. V), Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue - (Central Information Commission) (30 May 2019)

No specific exemption is codified which allowed non-disclosure of information on basis that the matter on which information is sought is sub-judice

MANU/CI/0250/2019

Right to Information

In facts of present case, the CPIO, vide its letter stated that as per the advice of the CVC, a prosecution sanction order issued against the Appellant vide order and sent to CBI for further necessary action at their end. However, it was intimated that most of the documents in the said prosecution file were pertaining to the CBI documents and as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act, 2005) CBI had been exempted to provide the information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide its order while concurring with the response of the CPIO, denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay held that, "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

Moreover, it was observed that as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no specific exemption is codified which allowed non-disclosure of information on the ground that the matter on which information is sought is sub-judice. In the decision of the High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain it is observed that, the matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts had held that, the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court.

The Commission directs the First Appellate Authority to re-examine the matter and furnish a suitable reply to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal stands disposed off.

Tags : INFORMATION   DISCLOSURE   EXEMPTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved