Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Central notification exempting CBI from purview of RTI Act upheld by KT Sangameswaran

Central notification exempting CBI from purview of RTI Act upheld by KT Sangameswaran

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Sep 9, 2011   modified Modified on Sep 9, 2011

The Madras High Court on Friday upheld a notification of the Centre issued in June this year exempting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In its order dismissing a public interest litigation petition challenging the exemption, the First Bench consisting of the Chief Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam said that indisputably, CBI was investigating several cases of larger public interest. The disclosure of information would have great impact not only within the country, but also abroad and would jeopardise its works.

The matter had been considered at all levels before a decision was arrived at. After analysing the material placed by CBI, the Centre held that the agency was a security and intelligence organisation.

“We find no justifiable reasons to depart from such findings, which appear to have been arrived at after considering all material placed before the government, taken note of by the Committee of Secretaries and other authorities prior to issue of the impugned notification,” the Bench observed.

The petitioner, S. Vijayalakshmi, said that in the light of various scams, the country had become rudderless in the war against corruption.

The government instead of becoming more transparent had become reactionary by giving a blanket exemption to CBI under the RTI Act.

Further, the legislation exempted only intelligence and security agencies.

The CBI was an investigating agency. It could not be granted such exemption.

“Security and intelligence agency”

The Additional Solicitor-General of India, Gouravah Banerji, assisted by P. Chandrasekaran, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, contended that the phrase “security and intelligence agency” should be understood in the light of what was meant by ‘security' in this context.

The Bench said that from the long list of cases which had been entrusted to CBI, it could not be denied that intelligence-led approach had enabled the agency to make headway in sensitive cases which have or had a direct bearing on the national and internal security.

“Therefore, we are convinced that the CBI could very well be termed an intelligence agency of the Government of India.”

It could not be stated to be a blanket exemption.

If an RTI applicant came up with a query alleging corruption in any of the agencies or organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such information sought for was bound to be provided. Similar was the case relating to human rights violation.

‘Considered at all levels'

After examining the reasons given by the Centre to justify its action, the Bench said the matter had been considered at all levels before granting the exemption.

The Hindu, 10 September, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2440899.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close