High Court Allahabad rejects Challenge to the Vigilance Notification , discharges the rule framed by Uttar Pradesh Government

High Court Allahabad rejects Challenge to the Vigilance Notification ,
discharges the rule framed by Uttar Pradesh Government

High Court Allahabad , on 25-10-10 , decided PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 63607 of 2010 , Saleem Baig Vs. State Of U.P.
And Another in the light of The U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965
and The Right to information act 2005 . The case was heard by the
bench of Chief Justice F.I. Rebello and Justice A.P. Sahi .

Considering the issue of law involved in the PIL the High Court
Allahabad decided that it was not necessary to call upon the State
to file its counter.

The writ petition challenged the notification dated September 22,
2010, whereby the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment constituted
under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965 was kept
out of the purview of the provisions
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 . The relief sought was to quash
the said notification.

" A bare reading of Section 24 (4) of the Act, 2005 would show that it
is open to the State Government to notify the vigilance and security
organizations to fall outside the purview of the provisions of the
Act, 2005. The first proviso of sub-section (4) of Section 24
clarifies that even if such notification is issued, the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations will not be excluded. The
second proviso thereof, further clarifies that these information will
only be provided after the approval of the State Information
Commission insofar as corruption and human rights violations are
concerned. The U.P. Vigilance Establishment has been constituted under
the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. As the Act, 1965 itself
shows, it is a special police force established for the investigation
of offences notified under Section 3 of the said Act. The offences to
be investigated under Section 3 are such as has been notified by the
State Government. The preamble to the impugned notification itself
shows that the object of the notification is that the U.P. Vigilance
Establishment has been formed and is functioning to collect
intelligence, investigate criminal offences and file charge sheet
against the accused in the appropriate court, requiring top secrecy
and precautions. Once that be the case, it cannot be said that the
notification is ultra vires to the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the
Act, 2005. Challenge, therefore, to the impugned notification, as set
out in the writ petition, will have to be rejected," observed the
court.

While dismissing the writ petition, the court however, made it clear
that as contemplated by the first proviso to sub-section (4) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2005, all the information pertaining to
corruption should not be excluded from the provisions of the Act, 2005
and similarly, the information pertaining to the human rights
violations also should not be excluded, but that would be subject to
the second proviso of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, 2005.

" Though I am disappointed on dismissal of PIL , I feel that with
RTI act 2005 along with this High Court order in their hands, the RTI
Applicants can now fight for the information on corruption related
issues in a more forceful way than earlier , when usually they were
denied information in such matters even by the Uttar Pradesh State
Information Commission while such cases came up for hearing before it
. I am of the strong view that At least now information-commissioners
shall have the fear of Contempt of Court if they fail to comply
proviso 1 & 2 of Section 24 ( 4 ) while deciding such cases ."

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )