Here is the file thanks to someone in CIC. Its not up as yet on CIC website.
Haven't had time to read it fully. Am also uploading it to the FILES section
of the group for those of you who dont get attachments.
Sarbajit
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:36 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now even zeenews has a piece on this.
> http://www.zeenews.com/news635595.html
>
> The question is where is this "decision" available and when was it pronounced ?
> Why are citizens not allowed to peruse the reasoned arguments of IC AN
> Tiwari / SN Mishra?
>
> In any case there is no such thing as a "split verdict" and Shailesh
> Gandhi should know it.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> <snip>
> The CBI correspondence seeking sanction of prosecution cannot be
> termed as given in fiduciary capacity, Information Commissioner
> Shailesh Gandhi said in a dissenting note on the decision of a
> three-member bench of the CIC.
>
> It is for the first time where an Information Commissioner has
> expressed his dissent over a decision endorsed by the majority of
> commissioners on the bench.
>
> The case relates to the plea of C Seetharamaiah whose son, an
> inspector with Customs, is facing CBI probe in an alleged corruption
> case.
>
> Seetharamaiah had filed an RTI application seeking correspondence of
> CBI with the Additional Customs Commissioner requesting for sanction
> of prosecution and related documents.
>
> The CBI raised objections to disclosure of these, saying it would
> impede the process of prosecution. It also said that report and
> correspondence with the said department and ministry is given in
> fiduciary capacity to the department, and hence, exempt from
> disclosure under the RTI Act.
>
> The bench comprising Satyananda Mishra, A N Tiwari and Shailesh Gandhi
> gave a split verdict, with the majority (Mishra, Tiwari) supporting
> the CBI's view and rejecting the appeal for disclosure.
>
> They said the issue of disclosure should be left with the trial court
> which has powers under the CrPC to decide if the accused had access to
> the said documents.
>
> "It is an admitted fact the CBI as third-party, seeking prosecution of
> the accused... had handed over to the Chief Commissioner of Central
> Excise and Customs, Vadodara evidence collected by it against the
> accused.
>
> "Transmission of this evidence was done in confidence for the
> exclusive purpose of helping the public authority make up its mind
> regarding whether there was a case to order prosecution against the
> accused public servant, the son of the appellant," Mishra and Tiwari
> had said.
>
> However, the arguments put forth by the agency were outrightly
> rejected by Gandhi who said, "In the present case, the information the
> appellant is seeking is that which has been sent by the CBI to the
> Department for the grant of the sanction of prosecution.
>
> "This is a procedural requirement in the CBI's Crime Manual 2005 as
> mentioned in the submissions made by the CBI and therefore, the CBI
> does not have choice with regard to who they would submit this report
> to...Therefore exemption under Section 8(1)(e) claimed by the CBI is
> not tenable under the Right to Information Act," he said.
>
> He said CBI has advanced no reasons to show how the process of
> prosecution would be impeded by disclosing the information.
>
> "When denying a right to the citizen, it has to be established beyond
> doubt that prosecution or apprehension of an offender would be
> impeded," Gandhi said.
>
Attachment(s) from sarbajit roy
1 of 1 File(s)
No comments:
Post a Comment