Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Special Police Establishment (appellant) against a direction by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to supply information to the first respondent (Kamta Prasad Mishra) regarding the process of grant of sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as the response of the Lokayukt to his queries. The first respondent, while serving as Town Inspector, was implicated in a trap case under the Act of 1988, and an FIR was registered on 11.04.2017. The Home Department granted sanction for his prosecution on 20.05.2020. The first respondent sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the decision-making process in the grant of sanction. The request was turned down, and the State Information Commission rejected his appeal on 16.12.2020, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The first respondent then approached the High Court, which directed the appellant to supply the information. The appellant contended that by virtue of a Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act and Section 8(1)(h), the information was exempt. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 8(1)(h), which exempts information that would impede the investigation and prosecution of offenders. The court held that the process of grant of sanction is integral to the prosecution and its disclosure could impede the ongoing investigation and prosecution. The court emphasized that the exemption is not absolute but must be applied to protect the integrity of legal proceedings. The court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, restoring the decision of the State Information Commission.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Section 8(1)(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Information relating to grant of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court held that disclosure of details of the sanction process and the response of the Lokayukt would impede the investigation and prosecution process, and thus falls within the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The court set aside the High Court's direction to supply such information. (Paras 1-32) B) Prevention of Corruption - Sanction for Prosecution - Confidentiality - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court held that the process of grant of sanction is part of the investigation and prosecution, and its disclosure could prejudice the ongoing proceedings. The exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act applies to protect the integrity of the prosecution. (Paras 2-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether information regarding the process of grant of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the response of the Lokayukt to queries made by the accused is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the decision of the State Information Commission rejecting the first respondent's request for information.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(h) exemption
- investigation and prosecution
- sanction for prosecution
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- impediment to investigation
- confidentiality of sanction process
