The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ.umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court on 2310712024 in W.p.No. 18897 of 2024 as the balance of convenience lies in favour of this petitioner and against the respondent/writ petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDtA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. NOOW VASHIST VENKATESWARLU, PARTY-IN-PERSON The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPANA WRIT PETITION No. LAA97 OF 2024 ORDER: Petitioner - Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) questions the order dated 04.O6.2024, by whic!l,, the 1st respondent Central Information Commission, New Delhi directed to inlorm the 2I1(l responde nt the status of action taken on his complaint (as mcntioned in RTI Application) as on date of RTI Application and at prcsent; if thc saici Application has already been disposed oi, then the broad outcome should be provided to him .,vithin three u.eeks from the date of receipt of the said orcier.

2. While entertaining the Writ Petition, on 23.07.2024, this Court directed stay of the order impugned primo facie, on the ground that the said order was passed without considering the fact that the Appiication filed by the 2"d respondent under Section 6(1) of the Rrght to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act') was disposcd of uide order dated 17.O2.2O22; Appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) and the same was also disposed of on 14.12.2022 by the appeliate authoriq'.

3. 'lhe brief facts reievant for deciding tire Writ l,etition are: the 2"d respondent hled an Application uncler Section 6(1) of the Act on 03. 1 I .2022 seeking certain inforrrratiorr rcia Ling to the complairLt fi1ed by him with regard to binan-ri [ransactions carricd on 6f Sn MJ. Sharma witli PAN No. III{MPM 1756E aioni; u.ith Siri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD & CD() ot- Tri, nstory Icliastructure Company, Jubilee Hi1ls, ljvdera i:ad. Ti.: e said Application was rejected uide reply dared 17.02.2i)21. reir rng on ,1rc iudgmer-.. t in Katapallg So:thgr: Reddg L. ACIT. (BpU), Hgd.era.bad dated 23.1O.2020, on the ground rl-rat Scctio.r 24{2) r,i the Act excmpts certain government organiserti.tt-t s ...,'hi,.i'r find :r.Ition in Schedule II. as nottiicC b1, thc Ceatr-.:i i,.)i't'i-irment i;r the Ofl-rcia1 Gazette. The Director (icnerai lri [lr:i:t-r.c TiL< (inr.cstigation) is included vide Ofhcial Gazettc dated 28.i1.].2O08 in the list of organisations u,hich are exempted ironi prr,r,iding irriormation as per Section 24. Tine Benami Tltrnsactions (Prohibition ) lJnit comes under con trol of the Direr:torate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this ofice is e xcmpted fro m providing such information. The rirst Aplellate Ar,tthoriQy dismissed the Appeal of the 2.,1 respcncent br.order dated 74.12.2022, opirling that appellant is inquisitive to know the details of investigation findings and the outcome of his TEp. However, it is noteworthy to affirm that the Office of the Director General of Income Tax (lnvestigation) has been excluded from the purview of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the 2"d respondent frled the Second Appeal before the lsr respondent, q/ho passed the order impugned, as stated supra.

4. The 1sr respondent - Commission opined that the broad outcome of the action taken on the Application or status of the complaint / letter shoulcl have bcen inlormed to the 2"d respondent under Lhe Act. The Commission re lied on the judgment in Kamal Bh<zsin u. Rad.ha Krishna Mathur (W.P.(C) No. 72 18 of 2O16) dared 0t.Il.2OtZ lr,herein ir was observed that 'by virtue ol the aforesaid proviso to Section g9(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information u.hich cannot be clenied to the Parliament or a Statc Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present casc, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance 4 Department includcs investigation and taken act on in c:iscs of corruption. Sccondly, the complaint relar.ed to thc allegations of misconduct zind how these complaints were treated u'ere ::leai-1v matter o[ public interest'.

5. hcmittedly, the 2"a respondent f-rIer1 a cot,rpiaint r,.'ith regard 1o the benami transactions bctu'een Sri N{.V Sharrra and Sri Cherukuri Sreedhar and he sou!:hl inforlnation i: rciatic,n rhereto. Learned counse I for pe r,iioncr 'Js li. i\.l:rn:aliri. Cirou'ciary submits that Sectlon 241)i ol 1- lc A{li irxrlr.lllts i:ertain government organisaticns ri hicli iin'l ii Lcl: iion i:, Si hedule [ , as norihed by the Central (]ovcrn n-r',-r-r: rn 'rhe ( If ii:ial (l.rr:ette. The Director General ci Ilcotltr-' l'ax iIr.'t:;tiEartirrn) is rnciuded uide Olfrcial Gazetlc ciareri 2.-q.Lll.l'i08 i;r '.i:c iisr cf organisations which are cxempt irom pr,-rvidrnq infor:nation as per Section 24. Tl:re Benam 'irans,tctions fProhibition) Unit comes under the control of : he Directoralc (rene ::a1 o.f Irrcome Tax (Investigation). hence. tlris cl;ilce is exer,pted frorn providing such information. Acr:ording lo her, th. information sought by the 2"d respondent dces not rr:la[e to :illcg;rtion,s of corruption and human rights v,oizrtioc its pcr 5 Proviso to Section 24(11, l:-ence, the same cannot bc provided. It is further argued that the 2rd respondent has not discharged the onus of proving the elements of corruption on the part of the investigator. She relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Rarlnchandra Deshpande u Central InJonnation Commissionerr ald contends that the details called for by the lno respondent are qualihed to be 'personal information'as defined in clause fi) of Section 8(1), clisclosure of which rvould cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual; if the Centrai Pubhc Information Ofhccr or the State Public information Ofhccr or the appellatc authority- is satished that larger public interest justihes the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the 2'c rcspondent cannot claim those details as a matter oi right.

6. Per contra, the 2"d respondent - pal'ty-in person filed a detailed counter-afftdavit and argues that the information sought falls under the Proviso to Section 2a(l) ol the Act, as there are allegations of corruption. It is further contended that information sought by him would in no \ ray prejudicially affect ' (zot;) r scc zt2 5 the -sovereigrrty and integrity of India in any manner. He draq.s a-l-t,ention tc Section 8 of the Act ald submits ttLat informa-tion sought for b.r him does not fall in any of the exernption c auses. According to him, it is w-e il-estabiished that unless information sought for pre-judicially affects the sovereign[r and integriry of India, the se:curitv of india or disclosure of information could impead the pj:ocess of investigation cr aporchenslon or iii:cs,lcution ,tf oi'tcnders, then, in al1 such case s, rnform! tion is -.'\cmpte(l l:cnr Cisciosurc. but not ',r'hen it does not iall toul ol elrv of thr: i.tctors mentioned herein abor..r:. henc::, his Apnlication co.-Lld not have been rejected. it is lurtirer submitted that the 2,.,: t-espl;r'rdeiri .lri€r!-ei1 inll ; cavoai anci served it on the Pub ic inlortnatior-r Oilccr (PIC) in zrdt,ance; to defeat the very purl)ose of s;err.'ing a:cilance noiico on him, the PIO as well as the Frrst Appellate ,a.rtthoritrr tlav. nci been impleaded as petitioners, hou,evcr, slrangell', [r[,:). \...ho is respondent in the cavea: petitio,r, has allested thc ,.1lticlavit in this Writ Petition rvhich brings out the ha;-rd-in glovr: operation undertaken by petrtioner. It is therclcrre, esrablishcd that petitioner has approached this Court 7 with unclean hands and when an ex parte interim order was obtained by suppressing the factum of caveat, then, such an interim order cannot be aliowed to survive. The 2"d respondent further argued that petitioner l'rad taken a mechanical and strange plea in the Writ Petition that CIC has not followed the judgment in Kupapallg Satya Red.dg's ccse (supra) which has no application to the facts of Lhc case. Tfre 1st respondent, unhe sitatingly, decided that Public Inlorn-iation Officer is notified under the RTI Act, but not under Ltre Binami Transactions (Prohibition) RTI Act, therefore' the principle enunciated in the earlier decision has absolulcll no application to the instant case.

7. The Legislature, in its w'isdom, have kept ccrlain organisations, which are engaged in activities involving sensitive information, secrecy of the State, away from the purview of the Act by including such Organisations in the Second Schedule' It does not, however, mean that all information relating to these organisations are completely out of bound of the public- Even though Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit is one of such organisations, it does not mearr that all information relating to it IJ is out of bolrnri of the public. The purpose of excluding all rhese organisations from the pun ieu' of the Act, as providei under Section 24, is to merely protect and ensure the confidentialitv oi the sensitive u.orks and activities undertal<en bi, them. Therefore, if there is any information, which does not impinge upon thc r:onfidentialitr- cf the sensitive activities of Lhe ,.-,rgar:isa1,ion and rf such information is also relatable to ihe issucs oi co1'rjpiion or virtlation of human rights, disclcsure of iirc s3iie cannot bc u,ithhelcl. ,(1. i t-r rhis coltrec,rion, iearned counse i for pe itroncr srii-'riits :hat lhc 2I.i resi;oncient failed to discharge the onus ol I-iril:rlilg thc :rliegation of ccrruption and violalion of human rrirl,.s. Allinirt:ctir', t_hc 2,,d respondent lodged a ccr:rpla.int oLr )8.O).2i)21 zLs rvell as 07.05_2O2 1, but the information relating [o th,.:: ar;'.icn taken thereon u,as not known, w.hi ch amounts to corr'.ipl practice, according to the 2nd respondcnt, hence, he lilec the RT) Application on O3. 11.2022 seekirrg inforrnalion rel.lting io int<;rnai file notings made on the corapliant, action taken thereor-t, if any notice is served to Sri M.!..Sharm.), true copr of repiy. if anr-, inlormation relating to the eLction fir ralized 9 in the matler and true copy of the orders in the matter' Unless and until information as sought is furnished, the 2"d respondent cannot prove corruption on the part of the investigating agency' Since the aliegation of corruption ald / or violation of human rights is involved in the process, information has to be furnished under Proviso to Section 24{ll of the Act' If the relevant information is wrapped up and the outcome of invesi igation is not made known to him, till then, he cannot dischargc Lhe same. Lczrrned counsel for petitioner further contends that 9 petitioner is not entitled to be furnished information soughl as it lalis u.ithin the ambit of Section 8(1)[) A plain reading of Section 8{ i )ti) of the Act makes it clear that in order to clairrr excmption from disclosure of any information, the essential conrlitions that must be satisfied are i) that it is personai inforr.atlon, clisclosure of which has no relationship to any pubtic activity or interest; or b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual However, even if the atbresaid conditions are satished, the Central Public lnformtrtion Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the i0 Appeliate A':t horifir mav disclose the information if the], are satished rila t larger public interest justihed disclosure ,tf such information, Proviso to Section 6(1)ij) aiso makes ir cjear that information, rvhich cannot be denied to the parliameirt or a State legislat_ure shzrll not be denied to any privat: person.

10. 'Ilte l",respondent, tn the irnpugned order, satisfied that larger pr-iblic interest justifies disclos;ure ol. such infor:ratior,. ,.rci 1',.rrthcr iniormalion scught cannot be denicd to Parliamertt c,r a State Legisiatui-c, hci:ce , t he snme cannot be denierd to itnr,: pars.)n. In l.teii of the same. it r:annot Lre said that inform.rt ir;n s.,r.tilnt bj, thg 1,,,i ic:;poi-rcient cio,_-s not 1ir i1 15" corneis of Seci;oas 24 .an1 gi I )f ) of th. Act. 1 1. Sircr ii:l S(11(.1) ci th: Act bars dissemrnating personal iniormaiion, disciosure of u.iticfr has no relatlonship to any public activity or inrercst, or w.hich would cause unu.arran te<l , n\..rs1cn of privacy of the individual. Under Section 24, thc in[ormation pe rtaining lo intellig,:nce, srrategy, scientillc u,or 1., and salery oi nation rnay, be absolutely excluded from the pro., ision,. of the Act, u.hiic thc other injbrmatiol may be dealt witlt as u.er provisions contained in the Act. i1 In the instant case, the 2'd respondent sought 12. information relating to action taken on his compiaint apart from requesting to furnish certain true copies of documents mentioned in his Application. The purport of the RTI Act is to provide information, duly respecting the proscriptions under Sections 24 and.8(l)(i) and the RTI Act is a citizen-empowering Act prornulgated to bring transparency in all spheres of public activit)' and, in certain contexts, even personal activity that has ar-r elemenl of iargcr public interest' Thus, the Acf does not set a prc-requirement lor an individual to disclose the necessiw for :rsking thc inforrnation, much iess 'establish' or 'prove' something at the slage of seeking information' so long as it does not lall u'ith in rhe an-rbit ol the limitations under Sections 24 and 8( 1)[j) of thc Act. Furlher, in the instant case, the 2"d respondent is 13- seeking inlormation relating to his complaint and he is neither persons secking information regarding personal details of involved in the investigation or modus operandi ol the investigation nor sensitrve or intricate investigation details, therefore.theinlormationsoughtcannot'byitself'be i) unilaterally deemed to be barred under the Acr, [,.urt]:ermore, the shelter being taken b1, petitioner, under the category of txcluded department, is only conhneci to reciuests that are covered under the explicit language under Secttons .24 and 8(t)[) of Lhe, tr61 ar-rd it is ro be noted that even the excluded Departments under the Act are bound to resEond to queries relating to rumait rights ..,iolatior: anc cornlpt i:rractice allegations against Lhe sraifi,;ofl-rcers u.orking il.r he clep:rriment and though ihc crep..rrrinc.i ma] r.'l.,r. aisr.!rls( i:'iil.il:aie and sensitive deta:ls reiatir'tg io invcstigaii{lns ihcl-.-rr,i._ rvhrcl could possibly harnper.r impede'.hc iair process. ir cernro.. sh\- a\^,av from disciosiltg tl1. s1i1qe (,,f ir.r,,,e st:gai ir:i ,,r: I i.:r t .tl l orrupt practices/-hu r-c a n riril:i:, r.i:,1:ttior..s, lcr.ri.t:-li.r--.;-i.,.i;^- ._ +_j^r per se involvers largcr public interest 74. S,o, er.e n b-v ieadir-rg this Sectioii 2:i Ln conjunction *'ith Section s(1)(1) or the Act. and correi.trnq it -,^/ir h the information sought trv rhe Aoplicant. the jnfo:malion souilht for and the pros<;riptions under the Act are a[ tangent and *tere is no overlap. The Applicant is neither sceking pe -sonal information nci thc one reiating to intelligencc cr lecruritv of the country, disclosure of which could potentially jeopardise the national security or interests of the country. In this connection, the 2nd respondent relied on CIS/LS/A/20 12lOOB6a, wherein the Central Information Comrnissioner referre d the case in FAA, Addl' DGP CID of Haryana v. CIC (CWP No. 12904 lf 2009) dated' 27'Ol'2O11- It the order was hclcl therein that 'a combined reading of these provisions r.r,ould reveal only that information is exempted which is directly effectir;g attd correlated to lhe "Intelligence" and "Security" of that organiszt Lion of the Ste and not otherwise' In the order of Manrpur High Court in Sri Phairemban Sudhesh Singh u' Stdte of Md.ntpzr (W P-(C).No. 642 of 2015), it was held that'It may 'oc ttottd that thc right to information is a facet of "freedom of speecl-r anci expression", as contained in Article i9(1)(a) of the Constitution, u'hich arc the loundation of all democratic organisations. Fundamen'"al rights should not be cut down by too rcstrictecl an approach. Even prior to the enactment of RTI Act, 2005, the expression "freedom of speech and expression" has been corrstrued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court' in a catena of decisior-rs, to includc not only liberty to propagate one's views' t,l ideas, opiniors and thoughts but also the r:ght to :rcquire information. in other words. the right to infonnation can be said to be a fundamental right subject to the excrnpt tons as contained ir Section 8 arid 24 of the RTI Act,. ,I.he 2.d r-esponderrL ;elso relied on the judgmcnts in Chie_f Informatton Commisstoner u. Sto,te of Manipur2 arrd Gula.b Singh Ro:na u, Centrd.l Public Information OfJieero. i 5. r\orv coming ti, ih(, nianncr ir r -r,. r rr.h ii.r s Writ Pctrtlon is scught tc be canvasseC , it is iti)t disot ! eij .har pu blic Information Ofhcer is car.eatcd br. tirc Ap;;ilc:llil[ ]:i(r th.:rci.ore. the parties zrre bcund b\- thc \i.rrit Ruies il rs rcvond comprehension of this Court as t,o .n.h.'' peiitlanl,t ,..iros.j n()L ao make the PiO. ivho sul'fcrcri thc ,)rdcr t;iir.1.1 r i11; : 'ii ,. :t :.:r!-{ to this rvrit pror:eedings. This Court rxpi(is the plr:1te s t. iLpprise true facts without suppression. tlierebv assist ll-rr: Co,.rrt by making all the affected parties and stakeholcler:, as par ues to the pelition to aid the cause of ju-siice. more so -,..,i:,:-n a i:er-son is on Caveat, rather than obtain oriier," behincl thr: l::li:l< Lak:ng the Court for a rirfe. ' i2o r ty ts scc r ' 2021 t-a\y Suir (Mad) j l_10 : l5

16. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the record, this Court does not see any balance of convenience, much less furtherance of justice by continuing the ex porte interim order any longer. 77 . costs.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No The interim order dated 23.OT .2024 shail stand vacated a utomalically //TRUE COPY// SDF N. RAJ GOPAL STANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER To, Affairs, New Delhi. 1 . 1 'l L.R. Copies. i. fhJ UnO"TS.iretary, Union of lndia, tiilinistry of Law, Justice and Company 3. iil; S;;i;i;i, telrngan, Advocates Association Librarv, High court + one cd tb Ms. K. MAMATA, Advocate [oPUC] 6. 6;; cc io snr. cAot pnnvEEtt t<uuAn, Dv. sollclroR GEN' oF o. on. c5io siil. NoorY vASHISHTA vENKATESWARLU, PARTY-IN- Buildinos. Hvderabad rNDrA [oPUC] PERSON[OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies B tv1 GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER WP.No.18897 of 2024 E STA 7.6. tt1 o+ Y a O 1 2 I'iAfl ?[25 t .t. t, i... /,'..- -1--:-..=;- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS w

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ.umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court on 2310712024 in W.p.No. 18897 of 2024 as the balance of convenience lies in favour of this petitioner and against the respondent/writ petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDtA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. NOOW VASHIST VENKATESWARLU, PARTY-IN-PERSON The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPANA WRIT PETITION No. LAA97 OF 2024 ORDER: Petitioner - Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) questions the order dated 04.O6.2024, by whic!l,, the 1st respondent Central Information Commission, New Delhi directed to inlorm the 2I1(l responde nt the status of action taken on his complaint (as mcntioned in RTI Application) as on date of RTI Application and at prcsent; if thc saici Application has already been disposed oi, then the broad outcome should be provided to him .,vithin three u.eeks from the date of receipt of the said orcier.

2. While entertaining the Writ Petition, on 23.07.2024, this Court directed stay of the order impugned primo facie, on the ground that the said order was passed without considering the fact that the Appiication filed by the 2"d respondent under Section 6(1) of the Rrght to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act') was disposcd of uide order dated 17.O2.2O22; Appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) and the same was also disposed of on 14.12.2022 by the appeliate authoriq'.

3. 'lhe brief facts reievant for deciding tire Writ l,etition are: the 2"d respondent hled an Application uncler Section 6(1) of the Act on 03. 1 I .2022 seeking certain inforrrratiorr rcia Ling to the complairLt fi1ed by him with regard to binan-ri [ransactions carricd on 6f Sn MJ. Sharma witli PAN No. III{MPM 1756E aioni; u.ith Siri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD & CD() ot- Tri, nstory Icliastructure Company, Jubilee Hi1ls, ljvdera i:ad. Ti.: e said Application was rejected uide reply dared 17.02.2i)21. reir rng on ,1rc iudgmer-.. t in Katapallg So:thgr: Reddg L. ACIT. (BpU), Hgd.era.bad dated 23.1O.2020, on the ground rl-rat Scctio.r 24{2) r,i the Act excmpts certain government organiserti.tt-t s ...,'hi,.i'r find :r.Ition in Schedule II. as nottiicC b1, thc Ceatr-.:i i,.)i't'i-irment i;r the Ofl-rcia1 Gazette. The Director (icnerai lri [lr:i:t-r.c TiL< (inr.cstigation) is included vide Ofhcial Gazettc dated 28.i1.].2O08 in the list of organisations u,hich are exempted ironi prr,r,iding irriormation as per Section 24. Tine Benami Tltrnsactions (Prohibition ) lJnit comes under con trol of the Direr:torate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this ofice is e xcmpted fro m providing such information. The rirst Aplellate Ar,tthoriQy dismissed the Appeal of the 2.,1 respcncent br.order dated 74.12.2022, opirling that appellant is inquisitive to know the details of investigation findings and the outcome of his TEp. However, it is noteworthy to affirm that the Office of the Director General of Income Tax (lnvestigation) has been excluded from the purview of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the 2"d respondent frled the Second Appeal before the lsr respondent, q/ho passed the order impugned, as stated supra.

4. The 1sr respondent - Commission opined that the broad outcome of the action taken on the Application or status of the complaint / letter shoulcl have bcen inlormed to the 2"d respondent under Lhe Act. The Commission re lied on the judgment in Kamal Bh<zsin u. Rad.ha Krishna Mathur (W.P.(C) No. 72 18 of 2O16) dared 0t.Il.2OtZ lr,herein ir was observed that 'by virtue ol the aforesaid proviso to Section g9(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information u.hich cannot be clenied to the Parliament or a Statc Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present casc, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance 4 Department includcs investigation and taken act on in c:iscs of corruption. Sccondly, the complaint relar.ed to thc allegations of misconduct zind how these complaints were treated u'ere ::leai-1v matter o[ public interest'.

5. hcmittedly, the 2"a respondent f-rIer1 a cot,rpiaint r,.'ith regard 1o the benami transactions bctu'een Sri N{.V Sharrra and Sri Cherukuri Sreedhar and he sou!:hl inforlnation i: rciatic,n rhereto. Learned counse I for pe r,iioncr 'Js li. i\.l:rn:aliri. Cirou'ciary submits that Sectlon 241)i ol 1- lc A{li irxrlr.lllts i:ertain government organisaticns ri hicli iin'l ii Lcl: iion i:, Si hedule [ , as norihed by the Central (]ovcrn n-r',-r-r: rn 'rhe ( If ii:ial (l.rr:ette. The Director General ci Ilcotltr-' l'ax iIr.'t:;tiEartirrn) is rnciuded uide Olfrcial Gazetlc ciareri 2.-q.Lll.l'i08 i;r '.i:c iisr cf organisations which are cxempt irom pr,-rvidrnq infor:nation as per Section 24. Tl:re Benam 'irans,tctions fProhibition) Unit comes under the control of : he Directoralc (rene ::a1 o.f Irrcome Tax (Investigation). hence. tlris cl;ilce is exer,pted frorn providing such information. Acr:ording lo her, th. information sought by the 2"d respondent dces not rr:la[e to :illcg;rtion,s of corruption and human rights v,oizrtioc its pcr 5 Proviso to Section 24(11, l:-ence, the same cannot bc provided. It is further argued that the 2rd respondent has not discharged the onus of proving the elements of corruption on the part of the investigator. She relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Rarlnchandra Deshpande u Central InJonnation Commissionerr ald contends that the details called for by the lno respondent are qualihed to be 'personal information'as defined in clause fi) of Section 8(1), clisclosure of which rvould cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual; if the Centrai Pubhc Information Ofhccr or the State Public information Ofhccr or the appellatc authority- is satished that larger public interest justihes the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the 2'c rcspondent cannot claim those details as a matter oi right.

6. Per contra, the 2"d respondent - pal'ty-in person filed a detailed counter-afftdavit and argues that the information sought falls under the Proviso to Section 2a(l) ol the Act, as there are allegations of corruption. It is further contended that information sought by him would in no \ ray prejudicially affect ' (zot;) r scc zt2 5 the -sovereigrrty and integrity of India in any manner. He draq.s a-l-t,ention tc Section 8 of the Act ald submits ttLat informa-tion sought for b.r him does not fall in any of the exernption c auses. According to him, it is w-e il-estabiished that unless information sought for pre-judicially affects the sovereign[r and integriry of India, the se:curitv of india or disclosure of information could impead the pj:ocess of investigation cr aporchenslon or iii:cs,lcution ,tf oi'tcnders, then, in al1 such case s, rnform! tion is -.'\cmpte(l l:cnr Cisciosurc. but not ',r'hen it does not iall toul ol elrv of thr: i.tctors mentioned herein abor..r:. henc::, his Apnlication co.-Lld not have been rejected. it is lurtirer submitted that the 2,.,: t-espl;r'rdeiri .lri€r!-ei1 inll ; cavoai anci served it on the Pub ic inlortnatior-r Oilccr (PIC) in zrdt,ance; to defeat the very purl)ose of s;err.'ing a:cilance noiico on him, the PIO as well as the Frrst Appellate ,a.rtthoritrr tlav. nci been impleaded as petitioners, hou,evcr, slrangell', [r[,:). \...ho is respondent in the cavea: petitio,r, has allested thc ,.1lticlavit in this Writ Petition rvhich brings out the ha;-rd-in glovr: operation undertaken by petrtioner. It is therclcrre, esrablishcd that petitioner has approached this Court 7 with unclean hands and when an ex parte interim order was obtained by suppressing the factum of caveat, then, such an interim order cannot be aliowed to survive. The 2"d respondent further argued that petitioner l'rad taken a mechanical and strange plea in the Writ Petition that CIC has not followed the judgment in Kupapallg Satya Red.dg's ccse (supra) which has no application to the facts of Lhc case. Tfre 1st respondent, unhe sitatingly, decided that Public Inlorn-iation Officer is notified under the RTI Act, but not under Ltre Binami Transactions (Prohibition) RTI Act, therefore' the principle enunciated in the earlier decision has absolulcll no application to the instant case.

7. The Legislature, in its w'isdom, have kept ccrlain organisations, which are engaged in activities involving sensitive information, secrecy of the State, away from the purview of the Act by including such Organisations in the Second Schedule' It does not, however, mean that all information relating to these organisations are completely out of bound of the public- Even though Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit is one of such organisations, it does not mearr that all information relating to it IJ is out of bolrnri of the public. The purpose of excluding all rhese organisations from the pun ieu' of the Act, as providei under Section 24, is to merely protect and ensure the confidentialitv oi the sensitive u.orks and activities undertal<en bi, them. Therefore, if there is any information, which does not impinge upon thc r:onfidentialitr- cf the sensitive activities of Lhe ,.-,rgar:isa1,ion and rf such information is also relatable to ihe issucs oi co1'rjpiion or virtlation of human rights, disclcsure of iirc s3iie cannot bc u,ithhelcl. ,(1. i t-r rhis coltrec,rion, iearned counse i for pe itroncr srii-'riits :hat lhc 2I.i resi;oncient failed to discharge the onus ol I-iril:rlilg thc :rliegation of ccrruption and violalion of human rrirl,.s. Allinirt:ctir', t_hc 2,,d respondent lodged a ccr:rpla.int oLr )8.O).2i)21 zLs rvell as 07.05_2O2 1, but the information relating [o th,.:: ar;'.icn taken thereon u,as not known, w.hi ch amounts to corr'.ipl practice, according to the 2nd respondcnt, hence, he lilec the RT) Application on O3. 11.2022 seekirrg inforrnalion rel.lting io int<;rnai file notings made on the corapliant, action taken thereor-t, if any notice is served to Sri M.!..Sharm.), true copr of repiy. if anr-, inlormation relating to the eLction fir ralized 9 in the matler and true copy of the orders in the matter' Unless and until information as sought is furnished, the 2"d respondent cannot prove corruption on the part of the investigating agency' Since the aliegation of corruption ald / or violation of human rights is involved in the process, information has to be furnished under Proviso to Section 24{ll of the Act' If the relevant information is wrapped up and the outcome of invesi igation is not made known to him, till then, he cannot dischargc Lhe same. Lczrrned counsel for petitioner further contends that 9 petitioner is not entitled to be furnished information soughl as it lalis u.ithin the ambit of Section 8(1)[) A plain reading of Section 8{ i )ti) of the Act makes it clear that in order to clairrr excmption from disclosure of any information, the essential conrlitions that must be satisfied are i) that it is personai inforr.atlon, clisclosure of which has no relationship to any pubtic activity or interest; or b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual However, even if the atbresaid conditions are satished, the Central Public lnformtrtion Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the i0 Appeliate A':t horifir mav disclose the information if the], are satished rila t larger public interest justihed disclosure ,tf such information, Proviso to Section 6(1)ij) aiso makes ir cjear that information, rvhich cannot be denied to the parliameirt or a State legislat_ure shzrll not be denied to any privat: person.

10. 'Ilte l",respondent, tn the irnpugned order, satisfied that larger pr-iblic interest justifies disclos;ure ol. such infor:ratior,. ,.rci 1',.rrthcr iniormalion scught cannot be denicd to Parliamertt c,r a State Legisiatui-c, hci:ce , t he snme cannot be denierd to itnr,: pars.)n. In l.teii of the same. it r:annot Lre said that inform.rt ir;n s.,r.tilnt bj, thg 1,,,i ic:;poi-rcient cio,_-s not 1ir i1 15" corneis of Seci;oas 24 .an1 gi I )f ) of th. Act. 1 1. Sircr ii:l S(11(.1) ci th: Act bars dissemrnating personal iniormaiion, disciosure of u.iticfr has no relatlonship to any public activity or inrercst, or w.hich would cause unu.arran te<l , n\..rs1cn of privacy of the individual. Under Section 24, thc in[ormation pe rtaining lo intellig,:nce, srrategy, scientillc u,or 1., and salery oi nation rnay, be absolutely excluded from the pro., ision,. of the Act, u.hiic thc other injbrmatiol may be dealt witlt as u.er provisions contained in the Act. i1 In the instant case, the 2'd respondent sought 12. information relating to action taken on his compiaint apart from requesting to furnish certain true copies of documents mentioned in his Application. The purport of the RTI Act is to provide information, duly respecting the proscriptions under Sections 24 and.8(l)(i) and the RTI Act is a citizen-empowering Act prornulgated to bring transparency in all spheres of public activit)' and, in certain contexts, even personal activity that has ar-r elemenl of iargcr public interest' Thus, the Acf does not set a prc-requirement lor an individual to disclose the necessiw for :rsking thc inforrnation, much iess 'establish' or 'prove' something at the slage of seeking information' so long as it does not lall u'ith in rhe an-rbit ol the limitations under Sections 24 and 8( 1)[j) of thc Act. Furlher, in the instant case, the 2"d respondent is 13- seeking inlormation relating to his complaint and he is neither persons secking information regarding personal details of involved in the investigation or modus operandi ol the investigation nor sensitrve or intricate investigation details, therefore.theinlormationsoughtcannot'byitself'be i) unilaterally deemed to be barred under the Acr, [,.urt]:ermore, the shelter being taken b1, petitioner, under the category of txcluded department, is only conhneci to reciuests that are covered under the explicit language under Secttons .24 and 8(t)[) of Lhe, tr61 ar-rd it is ro be noted that even the excluded Departments under the Act are bound to resEond to queries relating to rumait rights ..,iolatior: anc cornlpt i:rractice allegations against Lhe sraifi,;ofl-rcers u.orking il.r he clep:rriment and though ihc crep..rrrinc.i ma] r.'l.,r. aisr.!rls( i:'iil.il:aie and sensitive deta:ls reiatir'tg io invcstigaii{lns ihcl-.-rr,i._ rvhrcl could possibly harnper.r impede'.hc iair process. ir cernro.. sh\- a\^,av from disciosiltg tl1. s1i1qe (,,f ir.r,,,e st:gai ir:i ,,r: I i.:r t .tl l orrupt practices/-hu r-c a n riril:i:, r.i:,1:ttior..s, lcr.ri.t:-li.r--.;-i.,.i;^- ._ +_j^r per se involvers largcr public interest 74. S,o, er.e n b-v ieadir-rg this Sectioii 2:i Ln conjunction *'ith Section s(1)(1) or the Act. and correi.trnq it -,^/ir h the information sought trv rhe Aoplicant. the jnfo:malion souilht for and the pros<;riptions under the Act are a[ tangent and *tere is no overlap. The Applicant is neither sceking pe -sonal information nci thc one reiating to intelligencc cr lecruritv of the country, disclosure of which could potentially jeopardise the national security or interests of the country. In this connection, the 2nd respondent relied on CIS/LS/A/20 12lOOB6a, wherein the Central Information Comrnissioner referre d the case in FAA, Addl' DGP CID of Haryana v. CIC (CWP No. 12904 lf 2009) dated' 27'Ol'2O11- It the order was hclcl therein that 'a combined reading of these provisions r.r,ould reveal only that information is exempted which is directly effectir;g attd correlated to lhe "Intelligence" and "Security" of that organiszt Lion of the Ste and not otherwise' In the order of Manrpur High Court in Sri Phairemban Sudhesh Singh u' Stdte of Md.ntpzr (W P-(C).No. 642 of 2015), it was held that'It may 'oc ttottd that thc right to information is a facet of "freedom of speecl-r anci expression", as contained in Article i9(1)(a) of the Constitution, u'hich arc the loundation of all democratic organisations. Fundamen'"al rights should not be cut down by too rcstrictecl an approach. Even prior to the enactment of RTI Act, 2005, the expression "freedom of speech and expression" has been corrstrued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court' in a catena of decisior-rs, to includc not only liberty to propagate one's views' t,l ideas, opiniors and thoughts but also the r:ght to :rcquire information. in other words. the right to infonnation can be said to be a fundamental right subject to the excrnpt tons as contained ir Section 8 arid 24 of the RTI Act,. ,I.he 2.d r-esponderrL ;elso relied on the judgmcnts in Chie_f Informatton Commisstoner u. Sto,te of Manipur2 arrd Gula.b Singh Ro:na u, Centrd.l Public Information OfJieero. i 5. r\orv coming ti, ih(, nianncr ir r -r,. r rr.h ii.r s Writ Pctrtlon is scught tc be canvasseC , it is iti)t disot ! eij .har pu blic Information Ofhcer is car.eatcd br. tirc Ap;;ilc:llil[ ]:i(r th.:rci.ore. the parties zrre bcund b\- thc \i.rrit Ruies il rs rcvond comprehension of this Court as t,o .n.h.'' peiitlanl,t ,..iros.j n()L ao make the PiO. ivho sul'fcrcri thc ,)rdcr t;iir.1.1 r i11; : 'ii ,. :t :.:r!-{ to this rvrit pror:eedings. This Court rxpi(is the plr:1te s t. iLpprise true facts without suppression. tlierebv assist ll-rr: Co,.rrt by making all the affected parties and stakeholcler:, as par ues to the pelition to aid the cause of ju-siice. more so -,..,i:,:-n a i:er-son is on Caveat, rather than obtain oriier," behincl thr: l::li:l< Lak:ng the Court for a rirfe. ' i2o r ty ts scc r ' 2021 t-a\y Suir (Mad) j l_10 : l5

16. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the record, this Court does not see any balance of convenience, much less furtherance of justice by continuing the ex porte interim order any longer. 77 . costs.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No The interim order dated 23.OT .2024 shail stand vacated a utomalically //TRUE COPY// SDF N. RAJ GOPAL STANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER To, Affairs, New Delhi. 1 . 1 'l L.R. Copies. i. fhJ UnO"TS.iretary, Union of lndia, tiilinistry of Law, Justice and Company 3. iil; S;;i;i;i, telrngan, Advocates Association Librarv, High court + one cd tb Ms. K. MAMATA, Advocate [oPUC] 6. 6;; cc io snr. cAot pnnvEEtt t<uuAn, Dv. sollclroR GEN' oF o. on. c5io siil. NoorY vASHISHTA vENKATESWARLU, PARTY-IN- Buildinos. Hvderabad rNDrA [oPUC] PERSON[OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies B tv1 GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER WP.No.18897 of 2024 E STA 7.6. tt1 o+ Y a O 1 2 I'iAfl ?[25 t .t. t, i... /,'..- -1--:-..=;- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS w