Analysis of the Judgment: CBDT v. Central Information Commission

Introduction:
The judgment in the case of CBDT v. Central Information Commission revolves around the disclosure of information sought by a respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) challenges the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the disclosure of the requested information. This blog provides a point-wise analysis of the judgment.

1. Background:
- CBDT filed a petition against the CIC's order dated 29-05-2017.
- The impugned order directed the disclosure of information sought by the respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act).
- CBDT claimed that the information fell outside the Act's scope due to its origin from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) and that it was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.

2. Information Requested:
- The respondent sought photocopies of certain letters and responses received from the Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT's letter dated 11-08-2015.

3. CPIO's Response:
- The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of CBDT responded to the respondent's application but did not provide photocopies of the letters requested.
- The CPIO cited Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought would impede the investigation process.

4. First Appellate Authority (FAA):
- The respondent appealed to the FAA under Section 19(1) of the Act.
- The FAA directed the CPIO to provide photocopies of the relevant letters but upheld the denial of responses received from the DGs.
- The FAA ordered the CPIO to convey the outcome of the investigations once concluded.

5. Second Appeal and Impugned Order:
- Dissatisfied with the FAA's decision, the respondent filed a second appeal before the CIC.
- The CIC allowed the appeal and directed the CPIO to provide the requested information.

6. CBDT's Arguments:
- CBDT argued that the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act as it would impede the investigation process.
- CBDT also claimed that the information fell within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act since it originated from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation).

7. Scope of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act:
- The court clarified that Section 8(1)(h) exempts only information that would impede the investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.
- In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that an investigation was ongoing or that disclosure would impede such an investigation.

8. Verification vs. Investigation:
- CBDT contended that the verification process conducted by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) did not qualify as an investigation under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
- The court agreed, stating that verification is not equivalent to an investigation but rather an exercise to ensure accuracy.

9. Exclusionary Provision of Section 24(1) of the Act:
- CBDT argued that information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) falls under the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act.
- The court acknowledged that CBDT is not listed in the Second Schedule, but the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is.
- Therefore, information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by any public authority is excluded from the Act's purview.

10. Exception to the Exclusionary Clause:
- The respondent argued that even if the information originated from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), it should not be excluded under Section 24(1) of the Act because it pertained to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
- The court agreed with the respondent's argument and stated that Section 24(1) does not provide an absolute exemption for information related to corruption and human rights violations.
- The court emphasized that transparency and accountability in such matters are crucial, and the public has a right to access such information.

11. Duty to Provide Information:
- The court reiterated that the Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
- It emphasized that public authorities have a duty to provide information to the citizens unless it falls within the exempted categories specified in the Act.

12. Limited Grounds for Denial:
- The court clarified that the grounds for denying information are limited and should be strictly construed.
- It emphasized that mere assertions or speculative claims of harm are not sufficient to withhold information.
- Public authorities must provide cogent reasons supported by material evidence to deny access to information.

13. Judgment and Conclusion:
- The court upheld the order of the Central Information Commission and directed the CBDT to provide photocopies of the letters and responses requested by the respondent.
- It clarified that the information sought did not fall under the exempted categories of Section 8(1)(h) or Section 24(1) of the Act.
- The court emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, and the public's right to access information related to corruption and human rights violations.

Overall, the judgment in CBDT v. Central Information Commission reaffirms the principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Right to Information Act, 2005. It clarifies the limited grounds for denying information and emphasizes the public's right to access information, particularly in cases of corruption and human rights violations. The judgment sets a precedent for promoting openness and ensuring that public authorities fulfill their duty to provide information to citizens.

Click to Download Case

.