ED NOT LIABLE TO DISCLOSE IDENTITIES NAMED IN PANAMA PAPERS: CIC
ED NOT LIABLE TO DISCLOSE IDENTITIES NAMED IN PANAMA PAPERS: CIC
Shanika Shukla
BACKGROUND:
Panama papers were the documents that were created by Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider Mossack fonsica. These documents got leaked in 2015, and it contained the details of personal financial information of wealthy and attorney client of various offshore identities. It too contained names of many Indian black money hoarders. When the appellant requested to seek the list of people named in panama papers and the name of the officer who delayed the investigation, the director turned down their request and claimed exemption under section 24 read with the second schedule of the RTI act.
Section 24 state that the RTI (Right to information) is not applicable to the intelligence and security organization specified under second schedule. The second schedule include organization like intelligence bureau(IB), director of revenue intelligence(DRI), national security guard(NSG), research analysis wing (RAW) of the cabinet secretariat, etc.
The director expressed strong objection as,
disclosing the names would tarnish the government and country’s image worldwide
CURRENT ISSUES :
The central information commission on 4th October 2019 held that the directorate of enforcement can withhold the people that were named in panama paper , according to the RTI act 2005. The decision was held in an appeal made by Durga Prasad Chaudhary.
Assistant legal advisor Rajesh Ridla,
representing the director, stated the Delhi high court judgment on Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya
WP(C) NO. 345/ 2015, according to which, “Section 24(1) expressively excluded the
intelligence and security organization specified in the second schedule.
Admittedly, the director of enforcement is included in the second schedule, and
thus cannot be called upon to disclose the information under the provision of
the act”
The same observation was made in the case of CPIO (central information public officer), intelligence bureau vs. Sanjiv chaturvedi 242(2017) DLT 542. In this case the commission perused the definition of “right to information” given under section 2(j) of the RTI act. Section 2(j0 states about getting the information that is held or under control of any public authority in form of certified sample or copies of documents, notes, disk, tapes, video etc.
In the same context the supreme court held the decision in Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative officer & ors SLP(C) NO. 34868/2009. In this the court held that,” under section 6 the applicant can only get information that can be accessed by a public authority and the information sought by the petitioner would neither have been with a public authority nor could be accessed by the same.CONCLUSION :
The commission held that the information sought by the petitioner was not accessible under RTI act and as the directorate of enforcement came under the list of organization exempted from the section 24 of the second schedule of the RTI act of 2005, it could not be compelled to disclose the information sought by the appellant.
Information commissioner said that, “Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties and in the light of the decision of the supreme court granting protection to the respondent public authority under section 24 of the RTI act 2005, no further intervention of the commission is required in the matter”
Comments
Post a Comment