By Anuradha Gandhi & Isha Sharma
Introduction:
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the complex interplay between the Right to Information Act and the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) exemption from its provisions. The court’s decision, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Ms. Prathiba M Singh, clarifies the circumstances under which ED can be compelled to provide information, particularly in cases involving human rights violations, such as allegations of sexual harassment.
Background:
The legal backdrop of this ruling stems from two petitions filed by the ED challenging directives from the Central Information Commission (CIC).
These two writ petitions were filed by the ED (The petitioner) seeking quashing of the orders dated March 18, 2019 and November 27, 2019 passed by the Central Information Commission, which directed the petitioner to supply the information concerned to the Respondents holding that the information sought by the Respondents does not fall under the exemption provided in the proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. [1]
The first case involved an applicant seeking administrative information related to recruitment rules, while the second case pertained to a legal advisor requesting information on allegations of sexual harassment.
First Petition requesting administrative information:
For the first petition, the court analyzed the administrative information requested by the respondent (who was an employee of the Income Tax Department) and realized that respondent No 1, in his RTI application dated January 30 2018, had requested for a legible copy of the recruitment rules for the position of Assistant Enforcement Officer amongst other things.
There was no reference to any human rights violations, as required in the case of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi [WPC 5521/2016, date of decision 23rd August, 2017], wherein proviso 24 of the RTI act, 2005 was interpreted in the Delhi High court and it was held that except in cases of Corruption and Human Rights Violations, the information of these exempted organizations under section 24 cannot be disclosed.
Judgment: Considering the fact that the information requested is only about recruitment rules, thus bearing in mind the various judicial precedents, this court is of the view that this is not a case which would involve any human rights violation and is accordingly not exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RT I Act.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Justice Ms. Prathiba M Singh set aside the CIC’s order dated November 27, 2019 emphasizing that information related to recruitment rules did not involve human rights violations and as a result, the ED was exempted from disclosing the information under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Second Petition requesting information pertaining to sexual harassment:
While on the other hand, the court took a different stance in the second case (W.P.C. 5588/2019) wherein an RTI application was filed dated April 05, 2017 seeking certain information and details regarding implementation of the order dated June 21, 2016 against X which related to certain allegations of sexual harassment made by the RTI Applicant/Respondent.
The Delhi High court reiterated the case of Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr., 2022/DHC/001042 as well as the aforementioned case of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and reiterated that the exempt organizations, ED being one of them, were compelled to provide information on the receipt of an RTI application if the information pertained to cases of human right violations or corruption. The Delhi high court used the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to define human rights violations as given in the case of Union of India vs Central Information Commission and Anr.-
“This court is of the opinion that the expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of the accused alone. Human Rights have been used for a variety of purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to determining the end of hunger and of medical neglect. In fact, the human rights are both progressive and transformative.”
Insofar as the second petition is concerned, the court is of the opinion that the non-disclosure of information of allegations of sexual harassment, would clearly fall within the conspectus of human rights violations, as exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. In view thereof, the ED is directed to disclose the information sought by the RTI Applicant within a period of eight weeks.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability, by providing clarity on the applicability of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Justice Singh highlighted that entities like the Intelligence Bureau (IB), ED and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) generally enjoy exemption under Section 24. However, she pointed out that the proviso to Section 24 allows disclosure in cases of corruption and human rights violations, making it a crucial exception to the general rule of exemption.
Importantly, the court clarified that its order did not delve into the specific allegations of sexual harassment but focused on the broader principle that information falling under human rights violations should not be shielded by the RTI’s Act’s exemption clauses.
Conclusion:
In essence, the ruling strikes a delicate balance between respecting the exemptions granted to certain organisations and ensuring that the RTI’s Act overarching goals of transparency and accountability are not compromised, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as sexual harassment.
Hon’ble Justice Singh reiterated the case of LPA 734/2018 titled Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr., 2022/DHC/001042, wherein it was held that “the intent and purpose of RTI Act is to secure access to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. It is said that ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’ and RTI Act promotes the said concept.” In light of this, it was reiterated that the petition with regards to sexual harassment must be allowed and the information concerned with this human rights violation must be made available to the respondent.
This decision serves as a precedent for navigating the nuanced landscape of information disclosure, emphasizing that while exemptions exist, they are not absolute and must yield to the broader principles of justice, human rights and transparency.
[1] W.P.(C) 5588/2019 & CM APPL. 24577/2019 dated December 12, 2023