LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-215

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SECURITY Vs. HARENDER

Decided On September 16, 2013
Directorate General Of Security Appellant
V/S
Harender Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent before this Court is working with Aviation Research Centre, which is part of the Cabinet Secretariat. The respondent applied to the CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat seeking photocopies of the proceedings and minutes of the DCPs held from 2000 to 2009 including of the file notings and correspondence led to the above-referred DPCs. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat responded by claiming that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ,,RTI Act) did not apply to the Cabinet Secretariat. EA-II Section, since it was included in the Second Schedule appended to the RTI Act. The view taken by the CPIO was also maintained by the first appellate authority. Being aggrieved the respondent approached the Central Information Commission (for short ,,CIC) by way of a second appeal. Allowing the appeal the CIC inter alia held as under:

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the order of the CIC, Directorate General of Security, Office of Director, Aviation Research Centre and CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat are before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of the Second Schedule which enumerates the intelligence and security organisations established by the Central Government which are in Section 24 of the Act would show that Aviation Research Centre is included in the said list at serial No.7. Admittedly the respondent was working in the Aviation Research Centre only. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to the aforesaid organisation except in the matters relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by the petitioner pertained to various DPCs held from 2000 to 2009 and such information is neither an information related to allegations of corruption nor to human rights violation. No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc. The Commission, therefore, was clearly wrong in directing supply of said information to the respondent.