SUBASH MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions, each filed by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), involve a challenge to the impugned notification dtd. 11/8/2016 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Odisha under Sec. 24 (4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. The said notification provides that nothing contained in the RTI Act "shall apply to the General Administration (Vigilance) Department " of the Government of Odisha "and its organization ".

(2.) The main ground of challenge in the aforesaid three writ petitions to the impugned notification is that it violates Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees to all Indian citizens the fundamental right to information. It is submitted that under the RTI Act disclosure is the norm and refusal of information, the exception. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865; S.P. Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149 and Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112.

(3.) Referring to Sec. 24 (4) of the RTI Act and, in particular, to the proviso thereto, it is submitted that the power of exemption granted to the State Government thereunder is not available even in the case of intelligence and security organizations where the allegations pertain to corruption and human rights violations. It is submitted that inasmuch as the impugned notification seeks to exempt the entire Vigilance Department in Odisha from the purview of the RTI Act, irrespective of the proviso to Sec. 24(4) of the RTI Act, it is ultra vires Sec. 24 (4) of the RTI Act. In other words, it is contended that by the impugned notification the Government intends to keep away from disclosure to the public, instances of corruption and human right violations, notwithstanding the proviso to Sec. 24 (4) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that the notification issued under Sec. 24 (4) of the RTI Act or even the Rules made under Sec. 28 of the RTI Act cannot exceed the scope of the restriction under Sec. 24 of the RTI Act. It is submitted that the Rules and the notifications are meant to carry out the provisions of the RTI Act and not whittle down or take away what is guaranteed by the RTI Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 1782. It is further submitted that the impugned notification imposes a restriction not envisaged under Ss. 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.