1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2022 seeking the following information:

“The Economic Times Politics dated 05.04.2015 has reported - CBI issues new guidelines for probing cases regarding disproportionate assets. It is also reported that this move has come after the setbacks that the agency faced in high-profile cases involving former Uttar Pradesh Chief Ministers Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati. The agency has also reported that it has accessed the said internal circular too.

INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER RTI ACT, 2005

Copy of the said new guidelines issued for probing cases regarding disproportionate assets.”

2. The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 04.03.2022 stating as under:

“2. The copy of the document sought by you vide your RTI application, is an internal cirucular of CBI, which is meant for the officers of the organization.

3. It is also to be informed that vide Notification F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, issued ids 24 of the RTI Act 2005. the Central Bureau of Investigation has been put at SI. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act. Hence, your RTI application is accordingly disposed off.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022. FAA’s order, dated 02.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Balbir Jain, AIG(P) & CPIO along with Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla present through intra-video conference.

5. The Appellant stated that “further to the observations of the Supreme Court in Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati (both former Chief Ministers of UP) in disproportionate assets cases, CBI has issued new guidelines in respect of disproportionate asset cases. Correspondent of Economic Times has viewed the said new guidelines and reported in Economic Times on 5th April. 2015”. He further argued that “CBI has filed a Disproportionate Asset Case against this RTI Applicant. Review of the charge Sheet Brings out that the Charge Sheet compiled and filed by CBI is, without adhering various guidelines issued by CBI Itself. This said omission put this RTI applicant in most disadvantageous position, in defending himself in the Court. Ex. Guidelines issued by CBI/Policy Division regarding computation of Income and expenditure of the Charged Officer and his dependent family members, during the Check Period, have not been adhered to, as evident from the Charge Sheet. In view of such omissions, either due to deliberate act or ignorance of the Investigating Officer, puts the Charged Officials in a piquant situation. It is understood that Notification F.No.1/3/2011 dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, issued u/s 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, putting CBI at Sl.No.23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act, does not empower CBI to deny to provide the circulars relating to policy decisions.

6. The CPIO submitted that the Appellant is referring to internal guidelines of CBI which are circulated within the CBI agencies for conducting required course of action in Disproportionate Asset (DA) cases. He further submitted that being an exempt organization under Section 24, the said information cannot be disclosed to the Appellant.

Decision:

7. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the material of record or arguments of the Appellant during the hearing do not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter rather the Appellant is merely expressing conjecture that in his DA case, CBI has not followed proper guidelines, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision is reproduced as under:

“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.—

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:…”

8. In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:

“4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption....” [Emphasis Supplied]

9. The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.

10. Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.

11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.