Case Diaries are available to accused under the RTI Act

Here’s my experience about filing an RTI to this effect and getting the case diaries successfully :-

After reaching the commission, my case was called and arguments started. Inspector had not come, one representative from DCP’s office had come. Argument from police side was that case diary cannot be given as it will impede the process of investigation since the case is under trial and hence information rejected as per Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.

My arguments, since the police has filed the chargesheet for the said case long back, and hence the role of police is over, it is impossible that the process gets impeded as the process is already over. Moreover, it is my right to get this information and the same cannot be denied.

Also, the DCP office calling me in person is a harassment to me. I am not asking anything illegal and why should I be harassed. Also cited that there have been other cases where Case Diaries have been provided on request thro RTI application.

KIC was trying to protect the police. But I strongly argued that I will not buy this argument that investigation will get impeded. The investigation is already over and I see no reason for denying the requested information to me.

Seeing my firm stand and the arguments, the KIC was not able to dispose my complaint and has given next date of 14th September.

14th September:

I used the following 2 citations and argued in the ensuing manner:-

Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002302/4945 and Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002302

Use Delhi HC decision
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10
+ W.P.(C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP and Mr. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate
along with SI Anil Kumar, Anti Corruption Branch
versus
D.K.SHARMA ….. Respondent In person.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER 15.12.2010

and

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Jagvinder Kaur,
w/o Gurpreet Singh Mansahia,
c/o Master Sukhdev Singh,
Uchhi Pully, Shivam Chowk,
Chahal Colony, St. No. 3,
Patiala Bye-pass, Sangrur, Punjab.
_________Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bathinda.
________ Respondent
CC No. 3209 of 2009

My Arguments:

Attended the hearing, my case was called first. I was wearing the MRA Tee. I started my arguments. Based on the 2 judgments that I had, I put across the arguments. I said, the police is empowered to deny case diaries to accused as per Section 172 (3) of CrPC, however, Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect on all other laws and hence I am entitled to get the information. Secondly, Section 8(1)(h) exemption cannot be applied as a blanket rule, the Delhi HC has observed that proper justification must be given as to how the information can hamper investigation/prosecution and as per Section 19 (5) of the Act, this onus lies on the PIO. This has not been done in this case. And Right to Information is my constitutional right, the RTI Act merely lays down the procedure and rules for the same. 8(1((h) cannot used to deny giving information. Then DCP (who had appeared in person) argued that they normally have some “confidential information” in case diaries which are not there in chargesheet. Then I argued that unless the court has expressly barred from providing the information, the same cannot be denied and if the “confidential information” as mentioned by the FAA is never revealed, it will never affect prosecution and investigation also unless we assume chargesheet was filed after pre-mature investigation. Finally KIC ordered that as per Sec 22, the information has to be provided and I was handed over the copies then and there itself

Download the order copy from here