Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner in furtherance of his Right to Information (‘RTI’) application dated 02-02-2016 wherein information was sought on six different queries, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. held that the decision of the CIC to exempt the disclosure of classified information under the (‘RTI Act’) was well founded and justified and thus, opined that the information sought under query no. 3 fell within the scope of exempt information under Section of the .
Background
The Special Branch of Delhi Police (‘Special Branch’) (respondent 1) had already given responses to the petitioner’s queries numbered 1,2,4,5 and 6 that were mentioned in the said RTI application. Thereafter, the petitioner sought disclosure of information related to query no. 3 wherein the petitioner asked for the certified copy of the complete Special Branch Manual with all Annexures/Latest Rulings/Notifications on Passport Verifications as on 03-02-2016.
The Special Branch, in its reply dated 01-03-2016, denied the petitioner’s request for information concerning query no. 3 by invoking exemptions under Sections of the (‘RTI Act’).
Aggrieved, the petitioner exercised their statutory right and filed an appeal under the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 04-10-2017, upheld the validity of the initial reply provided by the Special Branch, reiterating that the information sought was protected under the aforementioned exemptions. The petitioner escalated the matter by filing a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) (respondent 2).
Vide order dated 23-03-2018, the CIC concurred with the findings of the previous authorities and held that the information sought by the petitioner was indeed classified and exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act. Having exhausted the appeal mechanisms under RTI, the petitioner had approached the Court to seek a judicial review of the decisions rendered.
The petitioner contended that the information sought was crucial for ensuring transparency in the procedures followed by the Special Branch regarding passport verifications. He contended that the disclosure of the Special Branch Manual was in public interest as it pertained to the standardized procedures related to passport verification.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that the key issue before them was whether the disclosure of the Special Branch Manual would violate the exemptions provided under Section of the .
The Court said that while the RTI Act was intended to promote transparency and accountability, the Court must be equally mindful of protecting sensitive information that could jeopardize national security.
The Court mentioned that it was cognizant of the public interest in knowing the operational framework governing verifications such as passport verification. However, it must be balanced with the State’s interest in safeguarding security-related procedures.
The Court said that the information linked to national security, or which could potentially impede enforcement operations, could not be disclosed under the RTI Act and that the operational manuals detailing sensitive protocols fell within the realm of information that is inherently confidential.
The Court noted that the manual in question outlined the procedure for conducting character and antecedent verification of passport applicants, a process which must be inherently kept confidential so as to ensure the integrity of law enforcement operations. It was further noted that the manual included the specific steps and methods employed by the Special Branch to verify personal particulars and background information, all of which are classified and treated as confidential by the very nature of the work.
Further, the Court said that the manual contained the procedure by which the verification reports are obtained from confidential sources and the disclosure of the same would undermine the confidentiality essential to such operations and that the sensitive nature of the information fell squarely within the exemptions provided under Section 8(1)(a).
The Court opined that the details contained in the Special Branch Manual could not be brought into the public domain and that such procedures may also reveal tactical insights into how law enforcement agencies function in sensitive areas, which could compromise the integrity of such processes.
Thus, the Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the decision of the CIC to exempt the disclosure of this classified information under the RTI Act was well founded and opined that the information sought by the petitioner under query no. 3 fell within the scope of exempt information under Section of the .
[Harkishandas Nijhawan v. CPIO, Special Branch of Delhi Police, W.P.(C) 12213 of 2018, Decided on 15-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — party-in-person
For Respondent — ASC Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal
The post appeared first on .