Disposed¶28

Ashish Anan v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/5175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act Section 8(1)(h) investigation-impediment exemption; refusal/refusal upheld of Call Detail Records (CDR) disclosure; Central Information Commission order dated 19.11.2018 not quashed; certiorari and mandamus writ petition disposed; Delhi Andaman Nicobar Police Service officer; FIR under IPC Sections 384, 506, 201, 120(b), 34 and PC Act Section 13(1)(d); Nani Daman Police Station; access to adverse material at trial.

What did the court decide?

The information sought (Call Detail Records) pertains to the same time period as the FIR registered against the petitioner, may have had direct bearing on the investigation thereof, and its disclosure could have been prejudicial to the process of investigation. ¶19

Ashish Anan Vs Union of India and Ors. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the CIC, upholding refusal to disclose the petitioner's Call Detail Records under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, should be quashed and the Respondent No.1 commanded to disclose the information.

¶12

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders is not required to be disclosed.

¶20

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶27
If any adverse material is sought to be relied upon against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, he shall be entitled to have access to the same during the course of trial, and those aspects can be looked into by the concerned Trial Court.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), order dated 11.02.2026, disposed of W.P.(C) 5175/2019 (Ashish Anan v. Union of India and Ors.). The petitioner, a member of the Delhi Andaman Nicobar Police Service under investigation in an FIR registered under Sections 384, 506, 201, 120(b) and 34 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, had sought via RTI application dated 12.07.2017 his Call Detail Records for October 2016 from Nani Daman Police Station; refusal citing Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act was upheld by the CIC in its order dated 19.11.2018. Holding that the sought information pertained to the same period as the FIR and its disclosure could impede/prejudice the investigation, the Court found no infirmity warranting interference and disposed of the petition, observing that the petitioner would be entitled to access any adverse material relied upon against him during trial.

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5175/2019, CM APPL. 22913/2019 and CM APPL. 34854/2023

¶4

ASHISH ANAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through:

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav (CGSC), Mr. Ansh Kalra (Adv), Ms. Kamna Behrani (Adv), Mr. Neeraj Raj Paulose (Adv.)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R % 11.02.2026

¶11

The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus thereby quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the CIC and consequential mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to disclose the information along with attending materials;

¶13

b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶14

As per the case set up by the petitioner, he is a member of the Delhi Andaman Nicobar Police Service and is under investigation with respect to an FIR registered under Section 384, 506, 201, 120(b), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this background, he had filed application dated 12.07.2017, seeking information pertaining to Call Detail Records with respect to his mobile

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 13:13:34

¶17

number for the month of October, 2016 from the concerned officers at Nani Daman Police Station, Daman. According to the petitioner, the RTI application is independent of and unconnected to the aforesaid FIR.

¶18

The concerned officer of the Nani Daman Police Station issued communication dated 03.06.2017 in response to the application. The information sought was refused on the ground that disclosure of the same would impede the process of investigation and prosecution and therefore, was not required to be disclosed, under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

¶19

The said communication dated 03.06.2017 was challenged before the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission, culminating in the impugned order dated 19.11.2018, whereby, the petitioner’s appeals were dismissed. 5. A perusal of the facts indicate that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner in respect of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) around the month of October 2017. The information with respect to his Call Details Records which is sought by the petitioner also pertains to the same time period. Therefore, the information sought may have had direct bearing on the investigation thereof. Therefore, disclosure of the same could have been prejudicial to the process of investigation.

¶20

Under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, ‘information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders’ is not required to be disclosed. The same is extracted below, for reference:

¶21

“8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 13:13:34

¶24

obligation to give any citizen,—

¶25

xxx

¶26

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”

¶27

Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. In any case, if any adverse material is sought to be relied upon against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, he shall be entitled to have access to the same during the course of trial. All those aspects can be looked into by the concerned Trial Court.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 19.11.2018. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶29

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 Nc/amg

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 13:13:34

Ashish Anan v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Anan v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Tushar Dev Vs Karvy Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Manoj Kumar Singh

Bombay Judo Association Vs Judo Federation of India & Anr.

Sh. Devender Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sakshi Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

N K Jain Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Dsiidc

Mahender Chaturvedi Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ms Chhapra Hajipur Highway Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Jagmohan Batra Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Maya Gupta & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rashpal Singh Todd Vs the Bureau of Immigration & Ors.