Info panel delivers first split verdict -Hindustan Times
(Is this decision by CIC bench valid in view of DHC judgement)
Transparency watchdog Central Information Commission (CIC) has given
its first split decision on whether an accused can seek information on
the reasons for his or her prosecution sanctions.
Two information commissioners, former bureaucrats AN Tiwari and
Satyananda Mishra, said the information could not be provided under
the Right to Information Act, whereas the third commissioner Shailesh
Gandhi, an RTI activist before he joined the commission, said it could
be provided.
RTI applicant Seetharamaih showed records of conversation between
customs officials and the Central Bureau of Investigation for
initiating proceedings against his son for alleged corruption
practices.
The Directorate of Customs and Taxation denied the information on the
ground that it was the property of the trial court, which can provide
the information as per relevant criminal laws. Not satisfied,
Seetharamaih appealed before the CIC.
The two commissioners upheld the decision of the directorate, saying
that the RTI act was aimed at exposing corruption and not aiding it.
They also said the information about the prosecution sanction could be
given if large public interest was involved.
"In this particular case, only private interest is involved as the
accused is the son of the RTI applicant," the CIC order said.
Gandhi had a different take. Not providing information would breach of
the fundamental right of the citizen, he said.
He said the RTI law overrides the provisions on providing information
in any other law and, therefore, the claim that the information can be
provided under criminal laws was not tenable.
Gandhi was also of the view that providing information would not
impede the investigation as in the present case it was over and trial
has already started.
Moreover, prosecuting agency CBI has failed to give reasons on how
disclosing information would impede the trial.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Info-panel-delivers-first-split-verdict/Article1-558799.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment