In a writ petition regarding a rejected RTI application, the High Court held that the information sought was not covered by the proviso to Section 24. The court found no fault in the impugned order dismissing the application. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
902 wp 8487-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8487 OF 2017
Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra .. Petitioner
v/s.
The Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission
& Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. A.A.Siddiqui for the Petitioner.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : JULY 04, 2018.
P.C. :
Information Act is rejected on the ground that DRDO is an exempted Organization under Section 24(1) of RTI Act except in case of allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
1 of 3
salgaonkar
902 wp 8487-17.doc
the relevant provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act,
which reads thus:
“Section 24 in The Right To Information Act, 2005.
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisations, being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before
2 of 3
salgaonkar
902 wp 8487-17.doc
the State Legislature.”
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
3 of 3
salgaonkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the RTI Act applies to the applicant when the information sought relates to DRDO, an intelligence and security organization exempted under Section 24(1).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
The Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission
Others
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
