Ex-IB special director Rajendra Kumar approaches CIC

Former Intelligence Bureau (IB) special director Rajender Kumar, chargesheeted in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case, has approached the Central Information Commission (CIC), seeking disclosure of correspondence between the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Law Ministry and opinion of the Attorney General in the case.

Kumar had filed his application under the RTI Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), nodal ministry for handling affairs of the probe agency, which cited exemptions given in the RTI Act to withhold the information.

The CBI had charged the former IB officer, who retired in 2013, under IPC Sections of criminal conspiracy, murder, kidnapping, wrongful confinement and provisions of the Arms Act in the case without waiting for the Attorney General’s opinion. 

The Union Home Ministry had refused to give sanction to prosecute Kumar and other IB officials. In its RTI response, the Ministry on December 19, 2014, had said that the information cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that can impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the accused.

The Ministry also cited clauses Section 8 (1)(e) (information held in fiduciary capacity), 8(1)(g) (which would endanger the life or physical safety of a person) and 8(1)(j) (personal information) of the RTI Act to deny the information.

During the hearing before the CIC, the officer argued that since the investigation has been completed by the agency and supplementary chargesheet has already been filed, the above sections will not hold.

He argued that Central Public Information Officer  (CPIO) has failed to show how the disclosure of information would impede the process of probe. He also contended that the CPIO has failed to explain how the opinion of the Attorney General is held in the fiduciary capacity. The officer said since the information was related to him, the argument of it endangering life of a person or causing unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual would not be applicable.