The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) doesn't want to reveal corruption cases involving its own officers, and is willing to take legal recourse to ensure the same.
The agency refused RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal's May 2013 request seeking information on graft cases against its officers. The agency refused to part with the information stating that the CBI is placed in second schedule of the Right to Information Act 2005 and thus it is not liable to provide information under this act.
Agrawal then approached the Central Information Commission's (CIC), which ruled in its favour in June 2014.
"Section 24 of the RTI Act has exempted certain organisations from the purview of the RTI Act including the CBI. However, information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violations have been excluded. The appellant's contention that he was seeking information relating to corruption within the organisation has merit and the response provided by CBI is misplaced and based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 24," said Chief Information Commissioner Rajiv Mathur in his order.
Mathur asked CBI to provide information to Agrawal within three weeks. However, the activist did not receive any information and instead got a letter from the CBI stating that they are approaching the Delhi High Court against the CIC's order.
"This is to inform you that CBI is going to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the said order of CIC," said a letter (July 24, 2014) written by CBI's Arun Bothra to Agrawal.
Agrawal had sought information regarding complaints received by CBI about corruption within CBI and status of investigations in those cases. He had also sought information regarding an FIR in a matter involving two CBI officers — Vivek Dutt and Rajesh Karnatak.
When the Parliament passed the RTI Bill in 2005, CBI was not in the list of organisations exempted from giving information under the Act. However, in 2011 when UPA-II was battling several allegations of corruption, the Congress-led UPA exempted the agency from providing information.
The Act states that even those organisations that are exempt from giving information have to provide the information related to corruption and human rights violation.
Agrawal stated that section 24 of the RTI Act directs public-authorities, placed under the second schedule of the Act, to provide information relating to corruption and human rights violation. "So far, the CBI has been arguing that such information could be provided only in cases of corruption and human rights violation. But now the CBI has decided to challenge the CIC verdict for information relating to corruption within itself," Agrawal told dna. "The CBI must not interpret the RTI Act in a manner it like. Its decision to approach the high court on such clear issues is clear denial of citizen's constitutional right which was simplified by RTI Act."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}