CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00967 dated 24-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19
Appellant: Smt. Asha Devi
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Police Control Room (PCR)
FACTSBy an application of 29-1-07 Shri Ram Lal of Mangolpuri, New Delhi applied to the PIO, Police Station, Model Town seeking the following information:
"Please give me the detail of message given at No. 100 at PCR on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."
PIO, Police Control Room, Delhi forwarded the same to Smt. Asha and Shri Bir Singh as third party asking for their No Objection to dispose of this application. However, in a subsequent letter of 23-2-07 Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO informed Shri Ram Lal that the request for information "could not be acceded to under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005".
Subsequently Ms. Asha Devi wife of Shri Bir Singh moved a similar application before the PIO, PCR, Model Town with the following request: "Please give me the detail of calls made at No. 100 at PCR by my husband on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."
To this she received a response also from PIO Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP, PCR, Delhi informing her as follows:
"Your request to provide the certified copy of PCR call form lodged by you on 19.01.07 has been considered and could not be acceded to under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."
Ms. Asha Devi then moved her first appeal before the Jt. Commissioner of Police on the following grounds:
"The calls are made by me and it is my right that what I informed the police on PCR call No. 100. There is nothing secret or any such thing which relates to you or any investigation or any third party related matter."
Upon this Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP (Operations) Delhi responded as follows:
"The information sought by you cannot be provided, as it will impede the prosecution of offender in case FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act-2005."
In her prayer before us Ms. Asha Devi has submitted as follows:
"You are requested to consider my appeal and direct the officers concern to provide the required information and act upon official responsible for it as per law. I am ready to appear in person along with any lawyer to counter the vague arguments of police."
In response to the appeal notice DCP cum PIO, PCR Delhi has submitted as follows:
"The brother of the appellant is among top 10 criminals of North West District and was recently arrested by the police of PS- Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act. It is their tactics to call PCR falsely mentioning the name of some police stations so that the police refrain from having surveillance on his activities and to use such calls to take benefit during the trial of case. The applicant may use the PCR call forms/ DD entries to take undue benefit during the prosecution of the accused. Hence, the contention of the applicant for seeking the said DD entries is strongly opposed as per exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."
Similarly, he submitted, "as per the report of SHO/ Mangol Puri, Ram Lal is the father of Mukesh @ Gujjar, a desperate criminal of the jurisdiction of P. S. Mangol Puri, Delhi. He has been involved in 17 cases of heinous crime relating to murder, attempt to murder, Extortion, abduction and other cases of serious nature. Mukesh @ Gujjar has recently been arrested by the police of PS Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act."
The appeal was heard on 5-12-08. We have received requests from Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP and Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP (Security) and PIO PCR dated 4- 12-'08 and 2-12-'08 seeking exemption from appearance. The following are present.
Respondents:
Shri Satish Yadav, SHO, Mangolpuri PS
Shri Narendra Pal Singh, ACP, Sultan Puri
Ms. Shanti, ACP cum APIO/PCR
Shri Satya Parkash, ASI/ PCR.
Although not present in the hearing, the following appellants appeared after the hearing pleading that they had lost their way resulting in delay.
Appellants
Smt. Asha Devi
Shri Bir Singh
In light of the ruling of Ravindra Bhat J. in the High Court of Delhi, Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Ors. W.P. No. 3114/2007 respondents were asked to establish how the disclosure of information sought by appellant Smt. Asha Devi would impede the process of prosecution. Respondent submitted that these were fake calls made to divert the Police from their investigation and if disclosed, will be used in defence on false grounds by appellant and their criminal relations. It was, however, not denied that such calls were received.
DECISION NOTICEIt remains obscure that how simply providing a record of calls received in the PCR could impede the process either of investigation or of prosecution, which will qualify the information for exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Since it is an established fact that such calls were, in fact, received, even though it is the case of respondents that these were illusory tactics to allay investigation against the criminal, and the fact of receiving calls is admitted, simply providing the record of such calls cannot make a difference to the prosecution effort, but can, instead, be used to facilitate it.
Records such as record of calls received in PCR are, in fact, public documents. Their disclosure is incumbent unless they have been made in confidence in which case such a condition will require to be recorded. It is learned that the local police are regularly pleading Section 8 (1) (h) to seek exemption from disclosure of PCR calls. Such a plea cannot be made on the basis of 8 (1) (h) unless it is clearly established that such disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution and not simply that the record will be used in defence by an accused.
The information sought by appellant Ms Asha Devi will, therefore, be provided to her within 10 working days from the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-12-2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-12-2008
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00967 dated 24-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19
Appellant: Smt. Asha Devi
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Police Control Room (PCR)
FACTSBy an application of 29-1-07 Shri Ram Lal of Mangolpuri, New Delhi applied to the PIO, Police Station, Model Town seeking the following information:
"Please give me the detail of message given at No. 100 at PCR on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."
PIO, Police Control Room, Delhi forwarded the same to Smt. Asha and Shri Bir Singh as third party asking for their No Objection to dispose of this application. However, in a subsequent letter of 23-2-07 Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO informed Shri Ram Lal that the request for information "could not be acceded to under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005".
Subsequently Ms. Asha Devi wife of Shri Bir Singh moved a similar application before the PIO, PCR, Model Town with the following request: "Please give me the detail of calls made at No. 100 at PCR by my husband on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."
To this she received a response also from PIO Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP, PCR, Delhi informing her as follows:
"Your request to provide the certified copy of PCR call form lodged by you on 19.01.07 has been considered and could not be acceded to under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."
Ms. Asha Devi then moved her first appeal before the Jt. Commissioner of Police on the following grounds:
"The calls are made by me and it is my right that what I informed the police on PCR call No. 100. There is nothing secret or any such thing which relates to you or any investigation or any third party related matter."
Upon this Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP (Operations) Delhi responded as follows:
"The information sought by you cannot be provided, as it will impede the prosecution of offender in case FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act-2005."
In her prayer before us Ms. Asha Devi has submitted as follows:
"You are requested to consider my appeal and direct the officers concern to provide the required information and act upon official responsible for it as per law. I am ready to appear in person along with any lawyer to counter the vague arguments of police."
In response to the appeal notice DCP cum PIO, PCR Delhi has submitted as follows:
"The brother of the appellant is among top 10 criminals of North West District and was recently arrested by the police of PS- Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act. It is their tactics to call PCR falsely mentioning the name of some police stations so that the police refrain from having surveillance on his activities and to use such calls to take benefit during the trial of case. The applicant may use the PCR call forms/ DD entries to take undue benefit during the prosecution of the accused. Hence, the contention of the applicant for seeking the said DD entries is strongly opposed as per exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."
Similarly, he submitted, "as per the report of SHO/ Mangol Puri, Ram Lal is the father of Mukesh @ Gujjar, a desperate criminal of the jurisdiction of P. S. Mangol Puri, Delhi. He has been involved in 17 cases of heinous crime relating to murder, attempt to murder, Extortion, abduction and other cases of serious nature. Mukesh @ Gujjar has recently been arrested by the police of PS Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act."
The appeal was heard on 5-12-08. We have received requests from Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP and Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP (Security) and PIO PCR dated 4- 12-'08 and 2-12-'08 seeking exemption from appearance. The following are present.
Respondents:
Shri Satish Yadav, SHO, Mangolpuri PS
Shri Narendra Pal Singh, ACP, Sultan Puri
Ms. Shanti, ACP cum APIO/PCR
Shri Satya Parkash, ASI/ PCR.
Although not present in the hearing, the following appellants appeared after the hearing pleading that they had lost their way resulting in delay.
Appellants
Smt. Asha Devi
Shri Bir Singh
In light of the ruling of Ravindra Bhat J. in the High Court of Delhi, Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Ors. W.P. No. 3114/2007 respondents were asked to establish how the disclosure of information sought by appellant Smt. Asha Devi would impede the process of prosecution. Respondent submitted that these were fake calls made to divert the Police from their investigation and if disclosed, will be used in defence on false grounds by appellant and their criminal relations. It was, however, not denied that such calls were received.
DECISION NOTICEIt remains obscure that how simply providing a record of calls received in the PCR could impede the process either of investigation or of prosecution, which will qualify the information for exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Since it is an established fact that such calls were, in fact, received, even though it is the case of respondents that these were illusory tactics to allay investigation against the criminal, and the fact of receiving calls is admitted, simply providing the record of such calls cannot make a difference to the prosecution effort, but can, instead, be used to facilitate it.
Records such as record of calls received in PCR are, in fact, public documents. Their disclosure is incumbent unless they have been made in confidence in which case such a condition will require to be recorded. It is learned that the local police are regularly pleading Section 8 (1) (h) to seek exemption from disclosure of PCR calls. Such a plea cannot be made on the basis of 8 (1) (h) unless it is clearly established that such disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution and not simply that the record will be used in defence by an accused.
The information sought by appellant Ms Asha Devi will, therefore, be provided to her within 10 working days from the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-12-2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-12-2008
No comments:
Post a Comment