CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089

Sanjiv Chaturvedi v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, GOI Important Dates and time taken:

RTI Application: 5­12­2015 FA/FAO: Complaint: 21­03­2016

Posted to 12­4­2016 2.30 pm Hearing: 21­03­2016 Decision: 28­03­2016

INTERIM ORDER

1. Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Officer has filed this application under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 pleading urgent consideration.

2. Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi submitted: that he needs a copy of IB report, which was sent to

Cabinet Secretary and the Ministry of Environment and Forests in August, 2014, on the issue of foisting false cases against him in retaliation against his investigation and reports against major corruption in the State of ; that he filed a criminal Writ Petition No.148/2012 before the Supreme Court; that the President of had to issue four extra­ordinary

‘Presidential Orders’ to quash illegal orders passed by the Haryana Government against him; that another writ petition No.1888/2015 was filed before the Delhi High Court claiming that his human rights were being violated; that he challenged the order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal in OA No.1275/2015 blaming him that “the documents filed by him could be ‘classified documents’, he was guilty of at least misfeasance, if not, misconduct”; that because the harassment meted out to him is directly linked to his exposure of corruption both in Haryana

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 1 Government and AIIMS, the IB report would become very crucial in ascertaining the reality; that he urgently needs a certified copy of the IB report, to establish his innocence and to fight against harassment; that in his Writ Petition No.1888/2016, the Court asked him to furnish all relevant documents, which include this copy of IB report, to prove his claims; that he approached the respondent authority/MOEF by RTI application dated 5­12­2015, who rejected the request saying that Intelligence Bureau when consulted, has objected to sharing of IB report; that IB was claiming complete exemption from RTI under Section 24 ignoring the provisos to that section; the Under Secretary to , Ministry of Environment and Forests communicated to the applicant on 7­1­2016, furnishing a note sheet of the concerned file in which the summary of IB report was made available showing that IB concluded that cases against him were false; that such a gist of the IB report was also submitted by the Central Government in their reply affidavit in OA No.661/2015 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi showing that there was no need to keep it as secret and deny access; that he has a right to seek approval of CIC for sharing a copy of IB report under S 24 of Right to Information Act. He prayed the Commission to approve sharing of IB report with him and to direct the IB and MoEF accordingly.

Analysis

3. The Commission noticed that the gist of the IB report as made available to the concerned courts is: “There appears to be truth in the contention of Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi regarding alleged harassment meted out to him by Haryana Government. His request for change of cadre from Haryana to merits consideration.”

4. It is no more a matter of secrecy, it has come in to public domain with extensive media coverage, RTI application and responses thereof and that applicant exposed afforestation scandal involving several politicians and bureaucrats leading to suspension of 40 public servants. He is a whistle blower indeed, who faced wrath of corrupt public officers and became victim of several kinds of harassments.

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 2 5. According to the first proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, the information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under Sub­section

(1) of Section 24. That means even though the organisation/IB is totally exempted u/s 24, this kind of information could be furnished by IB. As per second proviso to s 24, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission. Hence the applicant approached the Commission seeking approval for disclosure of IB report mentioned above.

6. The applicant could convince the Commission about threat to his personal security as he had exposed the afforestation scam and because of the same, he is facing false allegations and forced to be on leave without any work being assigned to him, dragged into several cases at different courts where he needs this very important document i.e., the copy of IB report.

Another false allegation was made against him that he was responsible for abetment of suicide committed by a suspended forest officer, while the complaint filed against that deceased officer stated that it could be murder by a woman, having suspicious relations with the deceased officer. A criminal case was registered under section 304 IPC against the applicant, which stands as a potential threat to the career of the applicant. Though the police filed a report cancelling this false allegation against the applicant, the case is still awaiting final disposal in the court of law.

7. The Intelligence Bureau is one of the organisations specified in Second Schedule to the

RTI Act u/s 24, exempting it from purview of RTI Act except when CIC considered that the information sought is either related to corruption or violation of human rights by that organization. Had IB not objected to sharing of its Report, gist of which is already in public domain, the MoEF could have given a copy of it to Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. No basis was made out for the objection by IB. The IB thus can be concluded, has obstructed the furnishing of information. The IB is ‘state’ and as part of its duty it has investigated and filed an report regarding applicant’s problem as explained above. As per their own Report, the Haryana State

Government foisted false cases violating his human rights. Right to information is a human

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 3 right, which applicant is trying to use to fight the violation of his other human rights including right to serve the Government as an IFS officer, which was being denied since many years. By objecting to disclosure of its IB report, the IB, the applicant alleged, has violated his human right i.e., right to information. Hence the information sought, i.e., certified copy of their Report regarding applicant, is relating to alleged violation of human rights. He says that the information sought would help him in fighting against violation of his human rights caused by some public servants whose corruption he exposed as part of his duties as IFS officer.

8. If convinced that the information could be disclosed, Central Information Commission has every authority under second proviso of Section 24 of the RTI Act to direct the disclosure. As the MoEF denied the information sought based on IB’s objection, the applicant has no other means to acquire, except to approach the CIC seeking approval for disclosure of IB report.

Applicant has also established the urgency as both Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi

High Court need to consider the certified copy of IB report along with other evidences to examine prayers of the applicant in the writ petitions.

9. For reasons discussed above, the Commission considers that applicant has made out a prima facie case for admission of this application urgency of hearing the matter under Section

24 and hence directs to issue notice of hearing to the office of IB requiring them to send a responsible officer to present their case. The IB office can either send their representation in the form of an affidavit or authorise the representing officer to make oral submission. The IB can also examine the need of the applicant and, if convinced, can furnish the certified copy of

IB report sought, or withdraw objection to sharing of it, allowing the MoEF to release a copy of the same to the applicant, and send the Commission a compliance report, in which case there will be no necessity of next hearing.

10. Though the IB has objected to the disclosure, the CPIO of the MoEF should have exercised his independent discretion with due application of mind in deciding whether the copy of IB report held by them could be shared with the applicant. In fact, their refusal has necessitated this application under Section 24. The Commission directs the CPIO of MoEF to

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 4 explain why penal proceedings shall not be initiated for not applying his mind to exercise discretion as required under RTI Act, to decide on sharing the copy of the IB report, the gist of which is already is known.

11. The case is posted for responses of CPIO of MoEF and authorities of IB, to 12th April 2016, at 2.30 pm.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy

(Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar

Addresses of the parties:=

1. The Office of Director of Intelligence Bureau,

Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,

New Delhi­110001

2. The CPIO under the RTI Act,

Government of India,

RTI Cell (Mr. R.S.Negi, Under Secretary/CPIO)

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,

Jor Bagh Road, Lodi Road Post Office,

New Delhi­110003

3. Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi,

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 5 DII/8, Western Campus,

All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,

New Delhi­110029

CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 Page 6