(Judgment/Order in Text Format)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic
copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake,
please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 63607 of 2010
Petitioner :- Saleem Baig
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- D.K. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Rule. Heard forthwith.
Considering the issue of law involved in the present writ petition, it
is not necessary to call upon the State to file its counter.
The writ petitioner has come to this Court challenging the
notification dated September 22, 2010, whereby the Uttar Pradesh
Vigilance Establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance
Establishment Act, 1965 is kept out of the purview of the provisions
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act, 2005'). The writ petitioner, by means of the present writ
petition, in his relief clause has sought to quash this notification
by a writ of certiorari with further consequential reliefs.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the impugned notification
issued by the State Government is against the constitutional
provisions as well as the intention of the legislature while enacting
the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 24 of the Right to
Information Act,2005 is relevant for deciding the present controversy,
which reads as follows:-
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--(1) Nothing contained
in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations
specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by
the Central Government or any information furnished by such
organizations 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:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in
respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information
shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information
Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such
information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of
the receipt of request.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other
intelligence or security organization established by that Government
or omitting therefrom any organization already specified therein and
on the publication of such notification, such organization shall be
deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the
Schedule.
(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid
before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and
security organizations, being organizations established by the State
Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under
this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in
respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information
shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information
Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such
information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of
the receipt of request.
(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid
before the State Legislature."
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 informations 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 chargesheet 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.
While dismissing the writ petition, we however, make 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 cannot be
excluded from the provisions of the Act, 2005 and similarly, the
information pertaining to the human rights violations also cannot be
excluded, but that would be subject to the second proviso of
sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, 2005.
Similar issue had also come up for consideration before the Madras
High Court in Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Office of the
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai Vs. R.
Karthikeyan and another, (Writ Petition Nos.23507 and 23508 of 2009),
decided on 12.01.2010.
Accordingly, rule discharged. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.10.2010
RKK/-
(F.I. Rebello, CJ)
(A.P. Sahi, J)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do
for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its
Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer
--
Urvashi Sharma
RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com
Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )
