The High Court · 2025

Order

l'hrs Writ pelition challenges refusal of Re:;poncients 2 and ?, - l)epury and Assistant Commissior_rers ol police to furnish the- rnformation requested in RTI Applicatron bearing Dy.No.8/ Nov,r 2023 dated 02. t 1.2023.

'lhe case of petitioner _ party_in person ir; that by way of RTI Appriczrtion, he sought information with reg:Lrd to the list of persons on whorn pD Act (Telalgana preventrr;n of Boot Legers Act, 1986) u.as imposed by the Cp for pencd cf i .Ian 2022 Lo Il i Or;t 2023. His grievance is that the 3,.1 re,:;ponclenr refused to furnish the same by order dated 21_ 11 2O123 iakins the plea of Sr.c:tion 24 of the Right to Information Act,:l{)0.5 (.1he Act', for brevitv). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is staterl t. ha.ve preferred firs[ appeal to the Additional DCp {Admin), r)fllce of commissioner or porice, cyberabad which was fo^,vard,::d t. thc 2"d Respondent. The said Appeal was dismissed on 13-02 20)4 on the same ltl:a. 3. Dru.ing attention to proviso to Section 24(41 ol the Act, petitroner submits that both the respondcnts comrri.ttcd:1, error while clisposing the RTI Application .rnd First Appcal J 2 respectivelj/. The ljonble Apex Court in catena of decisions held thai Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. It rs submittcd rhat the person who has been detained under Preventive Detention Law cither made by the Parliament of India or the State Legislature' his or her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violaLecl. It is further submitted that detention orders are passed by thc Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad who is not listed in ti-re G.O.Ms.No.667, General Administration (GPM&AR) Dept, dated O3-O9 2OO7, Learned Government Pleader for Information &

4. Technolog,', based on the averments in the counter affidavit hled bv the Assistant Commissioner of Policc, CCRR-crtm-Public hrlormatiott Offrcer, Cyberabad Commissioneratc, submil s that rhc- infbrmation sought cannot be provided, as the same is the subject miitter ol Special Branch (SB), which is exempicd from furnishing under Section 2a$l of the RTI Act, 2005 and as per c.O. Ms. No. 667, General Administration (GPM & AR) Dcpartmenl, datcd O3-O9-2OOT Accordihg to him, by vir[ue of the po\4.ers rrested under Section 24(41, the State Government issued notificalion to the effect that provisions of said Act shall not appll- to the intelligence and Security organizations ) Special in the (]encral established bv the State Government including thc Branches (SB) subject to the conditions indicate cl provisions there under, urde G.O.Ms. No. 667. Adminis[rali.n (cipM & AR) Dept., dared 03 og 2c,o7. rr is submit[cd tha t tlte contention of petitioner that pe rs,on u,ho is detained in prison due to Telangana pD Act, their hurrzrn rights and Articre .2 r :rre violated by the state Instrumentarities is not correcl and basc [css, as detention orders are passt:,1 by the Delaining Aurthorities l.e / D istrict Collectors in exercise of the pow,ers conferred under Secri ion 3(2) of the Act I of 1986, duly following the procedure and in strict compliance with the n:i:lndatory provlslons undcr Lhe said Act and also the sal.egr,rards as contemplated under Article 22 of the Constilution, he nce the question of vir.;lation of human rights does not arrse. Commissioners of poiir:c well-es.t ablish ed In Lhis regard, learned Government pleacler reliecl upon the judgmcnt of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in tl;nion of Ind.ia Vs. Dimple Happg Dhakad dated, la.O7..t,t)79 in Criminal Appeat No. 1064 ol 2019. 5. petitioner has come up with reply to the ooLrnter_ affidavit filed Lry the 2nd respondent. placing reliance on tjectior_r ,_09, t, is stated that every notification ,,shall,, be laid belirre thc State Legislature. however, G.O.Ms.No. 667 dated 03.(t<).2OOZ l I .&t-.r'r I 4 \^ra s nol laid belore the State Legislature' In response to the RTI Applicatitrn d.atecl 24.O9.2024, it is stated that the said G O' was rroL iaid betbrc the State legislature of Andhra Pradesh and no entricswererecordeclinlnward&Outwardregister'hence'the same is non-est. He has drawn attention of this Court to lew rclevant. observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thc Hon'ble Higlr Cor-rrt for the State of Telangana in the context of non-application of mind while passing detention order in a mcchanical manner' They are Am'eena Begum as' The State oJ Telanganal ' Rd.m u. The State Of Telangantz; Nenauath Bujji u The State oJ Telanganas ' He submits that though G.O, kIs. No. 667 w-as issued on 03 O9'20O7 exempting ccrtain organisat ions inctuding Special Branch (which maintains the data regarrding thc preventive detention) from previer'r'of RTI Act' it is esrabiisltcd 1;rocedure that when any detention order is passerl br the authorities, the government necessarily have to issur: a G.O. ar-rcl the same must be uploaded on the website' Regret tabl]', the government despite the explicit directions of this Ctrurt to upload the government orders within one day' is no\\, rcsorting to unfair means by contending that thc '[2023] r1s(t.R.95:l '[202,213 S.C,R.5 '{2024i 3SC.R 118i ! i I I I l l I I I ) I information pertains to Special Branch and the same cannot be uploaded.

6. As is cvident from the material available on record, the list of persons on whom pD Act was impos,:1 bv the Commissioner o[ Police during the period 1"r Januarr, 2022 to October 20,1!i rvas not provided to petitioner by Resp,ondents 2 and 3. Petitioner's case is that though Section 24(4) s;,,ates that intelligence organisations are exempted from l_r rnishing information, as per Proviso, where the information rela tcs to the allegations of human rights and corruption, thcn the information shall be furnished. According to petitioner, right to information is a fundamental righf guaranleed nndcr Article 19(1) and tht-' human rights of the person detainecl in p,r.ison due to Telangan:L PD Act guaranteed under Article 21 arc allegedly violated by the State instrumentalities, hence, infirrmation sought is t. be fi_rrnished. However, the public I.ftr.nation officer, ACP, {JCRB, Cyberabad informed that the ir_., f,rmatio, cannot be provided, as the same is subject matter ()l.specral Branch (SB) which is exempted from furnishing under Section 2a$) of the Acr as per G.O.Ms.No. 667, dated 3O.09.2O(17.

7. Itr this context, it is to be noted tl-rat ac rnittccllr,, Section 24 of ne Act provides immunity to certair-t org. Lr isa[iuns l l 6 set up b]. thc State Government. For better appreciation of the matter, it is perr,inent to extract Section 24(4) as under: " 2414\ Nothing contained in this Act shatl apply to such irLtelJigencc and sccurity organization being organizations established by thc State (iovernmcnt, as that Government may, from time to time, by notificatron in the Official Gazette, specify: Providecl that the inlormation pertaining to the allegations oI corluption an,-l human rights violations sha[[ not be excluded under this s u b- scction: Providcd further that in the case of information sought for is in respect t.rf ailcgations of violation of human rights, the information shall onl,r be pro'.,ided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Sectlon 7, srrch informatior shall be provided within forty-hve days from the date of the rer:r:ipt of re(luest."

8. tsl virtue of the powers vested under Section 24(4) ol the Act, the State Government issued Notification vide G.O.Ms.No. 6r-17, dated 03.O9.2OO7, to the effect that the irrovisions of lhe said Act shall not apply to the intelligence and securi t-!, organisa tions estabiished by the State Government ir-rcluciing the Special Branches like State Intelligence Departmcnt ancl rts Special Intelligence Branch, State Security Wing, State Gre-vhounds Organisation, All District Special Branches under the control of Superintendents of Police, all Secur; t1' IJnits in the Districts under the Superintendents of Polic-e, APSP, SPF, SARCPL, etcetera. Since the data sought eonees under Spccial Branch, the same is not liable to be 7 furnished. Further, it is respondents, detention Commi to be seen, as contenrle<l by the orders were passerl bv sslorrers of police / Distr-ict Collectors clul,y lit !lorvi we ll-established procedure and in mandaton- provisions under the ng thc strict compliancc with the said Act :rncl also the contemplated under Article 2,_1, of the safeguards :TS Constitutior-r In Dimpte Eappg Dhqkad,s case, re.lied on Gor.er-n ment pleader, the Hon,ble Supreme Courl held learned that: ,ln sofar as thr favour of upholcling ,n.'i constitution .ro ,n.;r;:ttsonal personar libert-,,, of ,, i,rarrri be subordinated rvithin rea order of deLe,ti",, ,." :,.;"t"able protection to gre socrety. va protect the safet-\ and between tiuerty or.;-;;;."'of question of vroiatron of Hu Detention casrra rr +L- ''o Human Rigrrrs , rn". appropriate forums inclucrinle courts and *"u".",,."]"t'tng "".r.1:ttl.::t r*"*t'"ted t""t"tttn that the courts shotrll lea, in libertl ' we a'e co.scrous rhat rc court are very zearous or But rhe ribertr.'";;;,;:I,uul.,,T:J:,; bouncls to the good of rhe peopie. pre'entive measure and cle'ised rrr arforci preventive detc,,tion is airned ro the nation' balance has to be srruck and the needs of the so man nghts does not ,,.,". ::,;..'::r:::j party7461"n' Ie' is ol r iolirr o, ot 2l' he/she md3' have approa(irr the the Hon'ble lligh (burt and Sr- rr.rrnc

9. Though petitioner relied on the judgments re ferred to supra, to- submit that detention orders are passed t,i, 116 authorities in a mechanical manner which ultimatefy artr,runts to gross human rights violation, in view of the facts state(l and in vier.v of the jr,rdgment extracted supra, this Court is ,.,f the 8 1\, vie\\r that there is no violation of 'Human Rights' as contended 'lherefore, the informatron sought need not be by Petrt toner furnishecl to Petiuoner F-urthe r' accorcling to Petittoner' when anY i O- detention order is Passed by the authorities' the government same must be necessarily have to issue a G O' and the uploaded on Lhe website' but' it appears' no uploaded' He brought to the notice of this Cour 18,08'2021 in W'P' PIL No 93 of 2O2f in su coniention Thc said judgment reads as under: such G.O' was t the order dated pport of the said ' ln vic\! of the tact that a scheme has been framed and j:: ::: ;:":::'#',1 prac e d bc ib r':' * *:'::'::" t;#: "T.;; samc has bcen clcared Tht olu,,." Horve'er'"'':'" ) petitioner that :'J," ;:;Til.,"?,f"'l',",,", c.os ror j"l1';ination or inrormation It is cleemed tn"t-t""O Departmcnt of the State Government f'y it' from time to time' on its website' the same' for the information of i,.;1.."1";;t"'i apprropr iate to 'lirect shali uploact the (l'Os it"*tf rrne o^'"ti i)refe lab'l\ '-'rrthin Pulrlic at l'irY-il ' '"t''"*

11. 1[ petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the said aspect, ir is opcn for him to question the same in accordance u,ith law but not in thls Writ Petition which was ltled seeking a rlireciiou to furnlsh the information as requesl:ed under the Right- to lnlormertion Act' : I ()

12. For all the reasons stated supra, the Writ pe _irion is liable to be djsmissed and the same is accordingly, disrnissecl. No costs. 13- Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, il any shall stand clc,sed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY SFISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

3. One CC to SRI MOHAN/MED ABSAR AHMED AdVocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Highr Court for the \/ State of Telangana. [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies BGS GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 21tO4t2OZs ORDER WP.No.7S34 ot 2024 I ' 'L l c 1 0 juL 2025 r'./ / .J(, !(9 * z).- :1. ,. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS