DVAC told to share copy of inquiry report sought under RTI Act
State Chief Information Commissioner rules that denial and refusal of information could not be accepted
In a significant order, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (TNIC) has directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption — the State’s anti-corruption arm — to share a copy of an investigation report sought by a petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner, a former Director-General of Police, had requested the DVAC to share a copy of the detailed inquiry report. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) said that it could not be shared under the RTI Act and the First Appellate Authority, too, upheld this decision.
The DVAC had sought exemption from disclosing the information under Section 8(1)(g) (information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes) of the Act.
Dissatisfied with the response, the petitioner moved an appeal before the TNIC contending that the denial of information was illegal and untenable, and went against the RTI Act. During an inquiry, he said that the information sought by him pertained to a detailed investigation, and not a preliminary or a discreet inquiry. He further said that denying such information was unacceptable and contended that he needed the information to protect his reputation, and appealed to the TNIC to direct the authorities to divulge the details.
After hearing both the sides, State Chief Information Officer M. Shakeel Akhter said it was an undisputed fact that the information and copies of reports that the petitioner had sought pertained to a detailed inquiry, and not a preliminary/discreet inquiry.
“It is also manifestly clear that the petitioner himself is a victim in this case and not a third party, and the submission made by him that he needs to protect his reputation and requires the information cannot be brushed aside as unacceptable,” he said.
Mr. Shakeel further said that the PIO, during the inquiry, had said that masking the details of two officers would be difficult because it involved large volumes of documents. However, the Commission did not consider this submission valid.
The denial and refusal to furnish the information by the public authority could not be accepted, he said.
He directed the PIO to furnish the correct and complete information and copies of documents sought by the petitioner by masking the names and other details of the officers to protect their privacy.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT