Ans. Yes, common
citizens can enquire about the investigations carried out by the department
against the officer. It could be any department carrying out investigation but
normally it could be CBI or any other similar agency and the department to
which the officer belongs would be getting informed of the progress of the
investigation.
All information under the RTI Act is in for public domain except on 10 items
covered under section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Clause (h) thereof provides that there is no obligation to give any citizen:
“information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension
or prosecution of offenders”.
Probably no question similar to the one asked hereinabove has come before the
Central Information Commission for a decision. However, in number of similar
issues regarding investigation in the cases of tax-offenders, decisions have
been given. I would take it that this would also be the position for issue
raised hereinabove.
I reproduce here two recent decisions decided on 17-8-2006 and 1-6-2006.
No. 174 of 17/08/2006
Facts of the case
The appellant had filed a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) against Shri J.P. Gupta
and on the basis of this TEP, investigations were carried out by the Income
Tax Department. In this regard, the appellant asked for ‘the copy of
assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, Ward 33(3) in the case of
Shri J.P. Gupta with respect to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and
2000-01’.
The appellant contended that any action taken by the public authority is in
the public interest and therefore, the assessment order should be disclosed.
The CPIO sought the concurrence of the third party, Shri J.P. Gupta, u/s.
11(1) of the Act, for disclosure of the information sought. But, Shri Gupta
did not agree to the request for disclosure of the details of assessment of
taxes paid by him. The CPIO, therefore, refused to provide the copy of tax
assessment orders u/s.8(1) of the Act. He also contended that there was no
public interest in disclosure of the information and the appellant had sought
information for his personal interest. The appellate authority upheld the
decision of the CPIO.
Commission’s decision
Every action taken by public bodies or public servants and its outcome should
be under the domain of public for open scrutiny. It follows that the
proceedings initiated by the income-tax department, in pursuance of the tax
evasions petition (TEP), and its outcomes should be disclosed, even without
asking for such information by the petitioners.
As regards the disclosure of tax assessment orders passed by the assessing
officers is concerned, such documents should also be disclosed provided that
larger public interest such as containing corruption is served. In the present
case, the appellant has not established as to what is the overriding public
interest in disclosing the details of tax assessment orders which contains
confidential business and financial transactions of the assessees. Unless the
case of public interest is established, the disclosure of such information
would tantamount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of assessees. Therefore,
the decision of appellate authority is upheld.
The CPIO is, however, directed to furnish the Action Taken Report on the TEP
filed by the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
No. 50 of 01/06/2006
Commission’s decision
The appellant’s concern for exposing corruption in public offices, especially
those relating to tax evasion and the consequent loss of revenue to the
Government should be appreciated. Evidently, the TEP filed by him is seemingly
genuine, which has encouraged the concerned authority to take appropriate
action and investigate the matter. There ought to be a definite time frame for
completion of such investigations and the petitioners should be in know of the
progress made in this regard. Not only the offenders are to be prosecuted to
contain corruption and the revenue due to the Government is to be recovered,
but also the expected ‘rewards’ to the petitioners should be provided at the
earliest.
It is over two and a half years that the matter was reported. The amount of
tax evasion, as alleged is huge, over Rs. 100 crores. The investigations
should have been completed by now. The DGIT (Vig.) is therefore directed to
provide the information relating to the investigation report, soon after this
exercise is completed, under intimation to the Commission.
Investigation on TEP is in progress, as stated by the CPIO. Therefore,
exemption from disclosure of information u/s. 8(1)(h) has been correctly
applied by the CPIO. Until the investigation is complete, records in any form
cannot be disclosed by the concerned authority. In view of this, the ground
for seeking information u/s.7(1) is not justified. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. From the above, it will be appreciated that few
hurdles have to be crossed before the full information is available.
-
If it is third-party
matter, one has to get over restrictions contained in section 11. Proviso
therein read:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by
law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure
outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such
third party.
-
One has to also get over
the provisions of clause (j) of section 8(1) which reads:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Subject to above, the
information is in public domain to the extent that it would not impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Editorial Note:
Column which started in July, 2006 issue of CTC Review unfortunately did
not appear in the issues of August and September for some unavoidable reasons.
It now gets revived. Please send your questions for subsequent issues.
