Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar noted that though the DVAC was exempted from the RTI Act, by way of a Government Order issued as per Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Act itself made it clear that the information relating to corruption and human rights violations would not be excluded.

“The first question for consideration is the effect of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has been exempted from the operation of the RTI Act by G.O.Ms.No.158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.08.2008, issued under Section 24(4). However, the proviso to Section 24(4) makes it clear that such exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations,” the court said.

The court also rejected the argument of the DVAC, claiming that details regarding the enquiry were confidential information as per Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual. The court remarked that the department could not create an exemption which did not exist under the Act. The court added that the confidentiality aspect could be looked into to decide whether particular information was supplied in confidence, but could not be used as a justification to withhold the entire records.

“As regards Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, an internal administrative instruction requiring information collected during an enquiry to be treated as confidential cannot create an exemption which is not contained in the RTI Act. Whether information can be withheld must ultimately be decided with reference to the exemptions provided under the Act. The internal requirement of confidentiality may be relevant in determining whether particular information was supplied in confidence, but it cannot by itself justify withholding the entire enquiry record,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu (Public Information Officer – DVAC) against the order of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, directing it to furnish details of an enquiry in an alleged corruption case, after masking the names and other particulars of the officers concerned.

A retired DGP had made an RTI application seeking information relating to the enquiry in the case, including copies of the enquiry reports, queries raised by the Government, statements recorded by the Enquiry officer, and all documents collected during the enquiry.

The application was rejected by the Public Information Officer invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act [exemption of information which, if disclosed, would endanger the life or physical safety of a person]. The retired officer filed an appeal which was also rejected. He then filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission, which directed production of the records. This order was challenged in the present proceedings.

The State argued that the disclosure of information would expose confidential sources and witnesses to possible harm. It was contended that the third-party information could not be supplied. It was also pointed out that Rule 29 of the DVAC manual exempted disclosure of enquiry-related information. The State also argued that masking the names from such voluminous record was impracticable.

The officer, on the other hand, pointed out that he himself was the subject of the enquiry in question, which ultimately resulted in closure of proceedings in his favour. He argued that he was entitled to know the material based on which the enquiry was conducted. It was also argued that there was no material to show that any real threat to life of physical safety of any witness or source existed. He also argued that administrative difficulty in masking names cannot be a reason to not furnish information.

The court agreed with the officer and noted that the state had not placed any material to show how disclosure of names or particulars would endanger their life. The court observed that a general assertion that disclosure may affect safety was not sufficient to attract exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.

The court also observed that the information was not relating to a third party as the officer himself was part of the enquiry. The court however made it clear that being part of the enquiry would not give the officer an unrestricted right to obtain every item contained in the enquiry. The court added that when the document contains genuinely private information relating to unrelated third party, the same could be protected.

Thus, noting that the State has not produced any material to justify withholding the entire records, the court confirmed the order of the State Information Commission and dismissed the State's plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Johnsathyan, State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. N. Palanivel, GA (Crl.Side)

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.C. Vigneshwaran, Standing Counsel, Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, For Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh and Mr Anirudh A Sriram