The Madras High Court has ruled that exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption, and therefore cannot be invoked as a complete bar where the enquiry relates to corruption investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). The Court asserted that Section 10 of the RTI Act permits severance of exempt portions, and the entire enquiry file cannot be withheld merely because some portions may contain exempt information.
However, internal administrative instructions such as Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual cannot create exemptions beyond those contained in the RTI Act, and administrative difficulty in applying severability cannot convert otherwise disclosable information into exempt information, added the Court.
The Court said that Section 8(1)(g) cannot be invoked as a blanket ground for withholding the names and particulars of all third parties without specific material establishing a threat to life or physical safety or that disclosure would reveal a confidential source of information or assistance given for law-enforcement purposes. It explained that Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information but does not justify withholding the entire enquiry record from the subject of the enquiry, particularly where the enquiry was closed in his favour.
Briefly, the State of Tamil Nadu has challenged the passed by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, which had directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to furnish information to the second respondent, S.R. Jangid, IPS (Retired DGP), after masking the names and particulars of other officers. The second respondent had filed an RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking copies of the enquiry reports dated 30 December 2013 and 6 August 2015, the queries raised by the Government, the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and all documents collected during Detailed Enquiry conducted by the DVAC.
The PIO rejected the request, invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, and the first appeal was also rejected. The second respondent then filed a second appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, during which the PIO furnished an item-wise reply. By the impugned order, the Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information and copies of the documents sought, with the names and particulars of the other two officers to be masked, within 45 days.
The State challenged this order contending that disclosure would attract Section 8(1)(g) and could expose confidential sources and witnesses to harm, that the Commission ought to have followed the procedure under Section 11(1) for third-party information, that Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual treats such records as confidential, that O.S.No.13833 of 2010 was pending and privilege was claimed therein, and that masking names from voluminous records was impracticable.
The second respondent countered that he himself was the subject of the enquiry which was ultimately closed in his favour, that no material existed to establish any real threat to the life or physical safety of any witness or source, that the names of other officers could be masked, that administrative difficulty could not be a ground for denial, that the DVAC’s exemption under Section 24(4) could not be claimed as a blanket exemption where information related to allegations of corruption, and that internal provisions of the DVAC Manual could not override the RTI Act.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that the proviso to Section 24(4) of the RTI Act makes it clear that the exemption granted to the DVAC under G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 26 August 2008 does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, and since the Detailed Enquiry in the present case related to allegations of corruption investigated by the DVAC, Section 24(4) could not be relied upon as a complete bar to the information sought. The Court noted that the request had to be considered with reference to the exemptions specifically provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
On Section 8(1)(g), the Court observed that the State had not placed any material before it to show how disclosure of the names or particulars of the third parties would endanger their life or physical safety, and that a general assertion that disclosure may affect the safety of witnesses or third parties was not sufficient to attract Section 8(1)(g). The Court further observed that the mere presence of a person’s name in an enquiry file does not, by itself, establish that the person was a confidential source, and that the exemption must be based on the nature of the information and the circumstances in which it was supplied.
The Court held that the State had not established, in respect of each such person, that disclosure would reveal a confidential source of information or assistance given for law-enforcement purposes, and therefore Section 8(1)(g) could not be invoked as a blanket ground for withholding the names and particulars of all third parties. The Court observed that where a document contains genuinely private information relating to an unrelated third party, such information may be protected under Section 8(1)(j), but such information must be identified and cannot be withheld merely because the document forms part of the enquiry record.
The Court noted that Section 10 of the RTI Act provides the appropriate mechanism in such cases, permitting severance of the exempt portion and furnishing of the remaining portion where only a part of a document is exempt from disclosure. On Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, the Court observed that an internal administrative instruction requiring information collected during an enquiry to be treated as confidential cannot create an exemption which is not contained in the RTI Act, and that the internal requirement of confidentiality may be relevant in determining whether particular information was supplied in confidence but cannot by itself justify withholding the entire enquiry record.
The Court held that administrative difficulty in masking names and particulars of third parties cannot justify complete denial of information, since Section 10 expressly permits severance of exempt portions. Finally, the Court observed that Section 11 prescribes a procedure where the PIO intends to disclose information relating to or supplied by a third party and such information has been treated as confidential, but the provision does not create an independent exemption from disclosure, and where the information proposed to be disclosed is otherwise not exempt under Section 8, the procedure under Section 11 has to be followed wherever the statutory conditions are satisfied.
