I want to deal with section 24 of second schedule of right to information

act 2005. Right to information act does not applicable to the organisations
which are covered under section24 of this act. This act is mainly not
applicable to INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ORGANISATION
established by the central government. The following are the
organisations to which the right to information act is not applicable.

a) Intelligence bureau
b) Research and analysis wing of the cabinet
c) Directorate of revenue intelligence
d) Central economic intelligence bureau
e) Directorate of enforcement
f) Narcotics control bureau
g) Aviation research centre
h) Special frontier force
i) Border security force
j) Central reserve police force
k) Indo-Tibetan border force
l) Central industrial security force
m) National security guards ( N.S.G.)
n) Assam rifles
o) Special service bureau
p) Special branch (C.I.D):
Andaman and Nicobar,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
q) Special branch of Lakshadweep police

These are the organisations mentioned under second schedule

of section 24 of right to information act 2005.
We will refer one of the case law filed on the above organisations

MR.SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL (VS) C.B.I.

In this case

IDENTIFICATION OF CASE:
 1) NAME OF THE CASE-------------MR.SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL (VS)
C.B.I.
2) NAME OF THE BENCH-----------SPECIAL COURT OF
3) DATE -------------------------------- 7-12-2012
4) MEMBERS OF THE BENCH------ a) SHRI SATYANANDA MISRA,CHIEF
INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER
b) M/S. ANNAPURNA DIXIT,
INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER
C) SHRI M.L.SHARMA,
INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER

APPELENT-------- MR.SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

RESPONDENT ---- CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION(C.B.I)

In this case the following members are presented

on behalf of C.B.I
a) SHRI V.K. REGHU KUMAR (S.P. A.C.B. CHENNAI)
b) SHRI RAVI GAMBHIR (S.P. A.C.B. NEWDELHI)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case the appellant mr. subhash
Chandra agarwal has filed a R.T.I. application to know the
following information.
1) Complete and detailed information on C.B.I. cases filed
on the below named four persons named MAYAWATHI,
MULAYAM SINGH YADAV, LALUPRASAD YADAV AND
SHIBU SOREN before and after their tenure as chief
ministers of their respective states. Information related
to corruption and human rights violations are not
exempted as per provision of section 24 of of the right to
information act.
2) Is it true that C.B.I has changed its position any time
during continuation of court cases filed by C.B.I on the
above named four persons?
3) If yes, complete and detailed information on occasion
when C.B.I changed its position and the case details??
4) Names of other chief ministers other than above
mentioned names where C.B.I made enquiries or filed
court cases for corruption and human right violation like
misappropriation of assets murder e.t.c.
5) Complete and detailed information on C.B.I. cases filed
on other chief ministers before and after their tenure as
 chief ministers of their respective states. Information
related to corruption and human right violation are
exempted from the provision of section 24 of right to
information act.
6) Is it true that change in C.B.I position was due to political
reasons/political rulers?
7) Any other related information.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

The relationship between them was an appellant asked

information about the four chief ministers regarding the cases filed by
C.B.I. there is no direct relation between the parties.

EVENT LED TO DISPUTE:

The appellant asked the information to the C.B.I of

Chennai about the cases filed by them on the above said four chief
ministers. The A.C.B. NEWDELHI had given explanation stating there in
that the right to information act was not applicable to C.B.I in terms of
section 24of this act. Then the DIG, A.C.B. Chennai had published some
information to the appellant but did not sent some information which is
related to information u/s 8(1) of this act. The appellant had filed first
appeal against the document sent by the of public information officer of
A.C.B. CHENNAI which was decided by the joint director, of AC.B. Chennai
in his capacity as appellate authority in which he had to hold the decision
for nondisclosure of some information u/s 8(1) of this act.

It appears that the appellant did not file the first appeal against the
order of communication of public information officer of A.C.B. DELHI and
has filed the present appeal before this commission.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

During the hearing, shri upadhyay submits that a bench of this

commission had passed an order in C.J.KARIA (VS) C.B.I directing that
central of public information officer had disclosed some information to the
appellant as follows.

The present right to information act application goes, the

information asked by the appellant is clearly related to the allegations of
corruption against various public servants. Therefore it is covered under
section 24 of the right to information act. In this case, consider the right to
information request and provides the information subject to the exemption
provisions of right to information act with in 15 working days of receiving
the order. If the central of public information officer decides not to provide
information, he must to pass an order by showing the appropriate
provisions in the right to information act for not providing the information.

The C.B.I. had moved the high court in its writ jurisdiction against
the said order, and the high court had passed the order

in the due course the validity of the order shall remain stayed .

The contention of shri upadyaya was that the stay granted by the high
court, involving an identical question of law, it would not be acting with
the part of the commission to pass an order in the present case.

REASONING:

The appellant, however is not happy with the state of affairs, in his
view that he has highest regard for the constitutional courts of the
country but he delayed in providing the information and the appellant
think that information loses the relevance, the appellant asked the
commission to recruit good officers for immediate disposal of right to
information related matters pending in the high court.

EVALUATION:

The honourable of DELHI high court has granted stay in the above writ
jurisdiction. Hence we will not decide the present matter at this stage and
we have to wait for the courts order, till the delivery of court order the
case the case was adjourned.

CASE CITED BY THE COMMISION WAS - C.J KARIA (VS) C.B.I.

We will refer another case related to ministry of HOME

AFFAIRS (MHA) BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION/INTELLIGENCE
BUREAU(I.B).

MR.AMIT BHARGAVA (VS) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.

IDENTIFICATION:

NAME OF THE CASEMR.AMIT BHARGAVA (VS) MINISTRY OF HOME

AFFAIRS

NAME OF THE COURT

DATE---------------------------- 27-08-2013
APPELLANT----------- SHRI AMIT BHARGAVA

RESPONDENT-------- BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION.& MINISTRY OF

HOME AFFAIRS

On behalf of respondent SHRI PRAVIN HORO SINGH, DIRECTOR

OF MHA AND SHRI SURINDER SINGH, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant SHRI AMIT BHARGAVA has filed the

appeal on 17-10-2012. Before the commission against the respondent
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS/ BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION/ INTELLIGENCE
BUREAU, NEWDELHI for not providing complete information for the R.T.I
application made by him on 14-04-2012.

The appellant has made an R.T.I application on 14-04-2012 to

know the following information:

1) Weather it is true that the visa of MR.PETER HEEHS an

AMERICAN NATIONAL was reviewed and extended as
published in the Indian express newspaper.
2) If the visa of MR.PETER HEEHS has been recently
rejected/reviewed/extended by MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
then what are the reasons for the
rejection/reviewed/extended of his visa given.
3) If so happened about the rejection/reviewed/extension of his
visa by the MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. Provide the
complete documents and a detail of action taken in
rejection/reviewed/extension of visa has taken.
4) Provide complete details of every visit of MR.PETER HEEHS
to India along with DATE and the Purpose of Arrival and
Departure and details of visa on record.
5) On what kind of visa did MR.PETER HEEHS visited India over
the last several years. Provide every details of every visa
issued to MR.PETER HEEHS as record when he visited to
India.
6) Did any time MR.PETER HEEHS had caught in violation of
any visa norms during his stay in India.
7) Any other relevant information.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
 After receiving this application the MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS (M.H.A), NEWDELHI has transferred this application to bureau of
immigration (I.B) on 25-04-2012.under section-6 of the right to
information act, for providing the reply to the POINT NO.4 (TO) POINT
NO.7. of the application made by the appellant and M.H.A. directed the I.B
to send the information directly to the appellant. The bureau of
immigration accordingly replied to the appellant on 28-05-2012. Informing
that as per right to information act chapter-6, section 24 of second
schedule the bureau of immigration/intelligence bureau is exempted from
providing any information. Hence the information asked by you was not
able to provide.

ISSUES AND HOLDINGS:

The reply made by the central information public officer the

appellant made an first appeal before the bureau of immigration on 19-07-
2012. In his order the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) said that
there is no involvement in the corruption or human rights violation of
bureau of immigration/intelligence bureau. On the questions asked by the
appellant.

The appellant challenged the order issued by FAA before the

commission.

The matter was heard by the commission on 9-08-2013. And the

commission made an order as The central public information officer
(CPIO), foreign division, ministry of home affairs(MHA) is here by directed
to appear before the commission on 27-09-2013 at 1.00p.m along
with written explanation why the R.T.I application of the appellant was
send without providing proper information where the application matter is
mostly held under the control of ministry of home affairs.

As per the commission asked written explanation the director of foreign

division has filed his written submission before the commission on 16-08-
2013 as follows:

1) It is not true that the whole application is not transfer to bureau of

investigation, it was transfer to bureau of investigation on 25-04-2012
to find out the information from the point no.4 (to) point no.7. of the
right to information application.
2) In those point the appellant has asked the visa issued by the Indian
embassy abroad and each visit of arrival & departure of the foreigner
is maintained by the bureau of immigration. The ministry of home
affairs does not maintain the record of arrival& departure of
 foreigners. The role of ministry of home affairs is to consider the
requests for extension of their stay in India referred by the concerned
foreigners. with regards to the violation of visa norms it is with in the
control of bureau of immigration to control the activities of foreigners
and it brings notice to the ministry of home affairs along the
recommendations to keep any foreigner in Black list for not issuing
visa to them for their future visits to India. All these recommendations
are of confidential and bureau of immigration does not provide any
information.
3) And for the remaining points 1,2,&3 information should be provided
by depositing the fee of RS.54/-. And a document consists of 27 pages
was sent to an appellant on 1-05-2012. He submitted a demand
draft of RS.54/- on 8-05-2012. By receiving the demand draft we sent
a document of 27 pages to the appellant on 11-05-2012 after blocking
certain portions in the photocopy as per section8 of the R.T.I act.
4) The appellant filed an first appeal on 11-06-2012 on the base that the
information provided by the central public information officer was
incomplete. Reply was sent to an appellant as directed by federal
aviation administration (FAA) on 26-06-2012. Providing that the
information to the extent available has already been sent to you. In
case if u want to inspect the relevant file u can visit the office of
ministry of home affairs, in case after visiting the office if the
appellant want some more copies the same should be sent to him as
per the rules.
5) He sent an E-MAIL that he did not received any copy from ministry of
home affairs on 21-08-2012. It is not true because the ministry of
home affairs did not received the copy sent to him till 26-08-2012,
after receiving the mail another copy was sent to him on 22-08-2012.
After sending the document on 5-09-2012.he desired to inspect the
file by visiting the ministry of home affairs office. He visited the office
on 6-09-2012 at 10.00a.m. and inspected the file and he asked the
more pages of the document . so, he was requested on 10-09-2012. To
deposit an amount of R.S.412/- to provide the document of 206 pages.
He also sent a reply through FAA on 12-10-2012. For depositing of
412/-. After depositing the amount the ministry of home affairs sent
the document of 206 pages to an appellant and again on 16-10-2012.
He send an email that the information sent by the ministry of home
affair was not satisfied and he asked to send the document at free of
cost based on the order on 27-10-2011 passed by the chief
information commissioner. A reply was sent by FAA that prescribed
documents was sent within the prescribed time as notified in the R.T.I
act supplying of documents at free of cost is not possible.
These are the written submissions made by the director of foreign
division, of ministry of home affairs.

The appellant has filed the written submission before the

commission as under

1) The reply sent by the central public information officer on 1-05-2012.

Did not said that certain information should be blocked at the time of
providing photocopies. After providing the photocopy very little
information have been blocked by saying that it was not able to
disclose as per section 8 of the R.T.I act. The appellant had said that
central public information officer did not gave reasons for not
providing the information this leads to effect the sovergnity and
integrity of india. And this leads to offence under section 10(2) of the
R.T.I act.

Section 10(2) the security, strategic economic interest of the state

with foreign state.

2) The appellant has said that the document has not been provided
within the prescribed time the same should be provided at free of
cost. As per section7 of the R.T.I act.
3) He made a suggestion to the commission to impose penalty on central
public information officer as per section 20 of this act.

EVOLUTION:

After hearing the submissions of the parties the commission

sated that the letter dated on 1-05-2012. By the ministry of home affairs
informed that the appellant in respect of point 1 is true. That ministry of
home affairs in the case of MR. PETER HEEHS an American national has
been extended his visa up to 15-04-2013 with the approval of
appropriate authorities. For point no 2&3 the commission said that the
after examination of the case the visa of MR.PETER HEEHS was extended.

The commission informed and directed to ministry of home

affairs to provide the document relating to the point 1,2,&3 permissible
under R.T.I act.

As far the information from point 4 to point 7 is dealt with

bureau if immigration the respondent i.e bureau of immigration is
exempted organisation as per schedule- 2 of section24 of the right to
information act.