NEELAM BHALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.02.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 83/2014 filed by the appellant/petitioner. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The learned Single Judge has extracted the relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the CIC which is to the following effect:-

(2.) From the above, it is apparent that the CIC had recognized the fact that the said Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant/petitioner. But, the CIC also noted the fact that Shri Bundela was not the holder of the information and had merely transmitted the information which had been received by him from the CPIO of the Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). Furthermore, the CIC noted that DRDO was an exempted organization under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Section 24(1) of the said Act reads as under:-

(3.) On a plain reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the Act does not apply to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or to any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. It is an admitted position that DRDO is a Central Government organization and is specified in the Second Schedule. Therefore, in the first instance, DRDO is an exempted organization and the said Act does not apply to it. However, the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the said Act clearly stipulates that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not to be excluded under this sub-section. In other words, the Act would apply to DRDO only to the extent of information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.