Right to Information Wiki

The working reference for India's Right to Information Act, 2005.

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: RTI Wiki — The working reference for the Right to Information Act, 2005 » Common Terms » Pendency of Investigation
explanations:pendency-of-investigation
Translate:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
explanations:pendency-of-investigation [2018/06/03 05:38] – [Authors] Shrawanexplanations:pendency-of-investigation [2026/04/19 16:45] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Pendency of Investigation ====== ====== Pendency of Investigation ======
-{{:explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350  |}}+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations pendency of investigation rti right to information india) 
 +metatag-description=(The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.)}}
  
-The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.+ 
 +<WRAP center round info 95%> 
 +**In one line.** **Section 8(1)(h)** exempts information that would impede an investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. The bar is high — a general investigation is not automatic cover. 
 + 
 +**What that means in practice.** 
 +  * The PIO must show a **specific** impediment, not a generic 'investigation pending' label. 
 +  * Once the investigation is complete, the exemption usually falls away. 
 +  * Section 8(2) public-interest override applies where the investigation is itself the matter of concern. 
 +</WRAP> 
 + 
 +{{:explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350x262  |}} 
 + 
 +The authority withholding [[explanations:information|information]] must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.
  
  
Line 20: Line 33:
 //“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[act:|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.// //“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[act:|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.//
  
-//A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information+//A [[explanations:public-authority|public authority]] which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information
 would 'impede' the investigation...............// would 'impede' the investigation...............//
  
Line 41: Line 54:
   - **Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.** In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.   - **Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.** In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.
   - **Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act**. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).   - **Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act**. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).
-  - **Public authority to disclose information if public interest out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act).** The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))+  - **Public authority to disclose information if [[explanations:public-interest|public interest]] out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act).** The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))
   - **There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified.** The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))   - **There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified.** The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))
   - **Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005**. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))   - **Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005**. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))
  
    
-== More Common terms under RTI == +===== More Common terms under RTI =====
 {{indexmenu>:explanations#1}} {{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
  
 [<>] [<>]
 ~~socialite~~ ~~socialite~~
 +
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[explanations:investigation-under-rti|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
 +  * [[explanations:vicarious-liability|Vicarious Liability]].
 +  * [[explanations:composite-petition|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
 +  * [[explanations:privacy-public-servants|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
 +  * [[explanations:substantially-financed|Substantially Financed]].
 +
 +{{tag>rti explanations}}
 +
Was this page helpful?
explanations/pendency-of-investigation.txt · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1