Latest News and ArticleView ALL

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the inclusion of a person’s name in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s list of “Undesirable Contact Men” (UCM) may amount to a human rights violation. Hence, such information is not automatically exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.

Justice Sachin Datta was hearing a petition by Vinod Kumar Bindal, a Chartered Accountant, who challenged the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) rejection of his RTI application seeking clarity on why his name appeared on the UCM list.

Read also: Delhi High Court Seeks Response on Plea Alleging Swiggy and Zepto Apps Inaccessible for Persons with Disabilities

The Court found that:

“Prima facie, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument that the publication of his name... has resulted in a violation of human rights as the same has harmed his dignity and professional standing.”

Background

Bindal discovered a newspaper clipping listing him as a UCM, which was also published on the CBI’s website. This led to a loss of professional reputation and opportunities, including removal from the Income Tax Department’s empanelled auditors.

Read also: Delhi High Court Directs CLAT UG 2025 Merit List Revision After Accepting Objections on Answer Key

He filed an RTI application asking for:

• Reasons behind his inclusion in the list.
• Whether the list is official and shared publicly.
• What criteria were used.
• Whether he had ever been informed.

However, the CBI rejected the request citing its exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. This section generally exempts intelligence and security agencies from RTI provisions. Yet, the proviso clearly states:

“Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.”

Read also: Delhi High Court Dismisses Ashok Swain’s Plea to Remove Remarks on Tweets from OCI Case Order

Despite this, both the First Appellate Authority and CIC upheld the rejection, stating the CBI’s exemption.

Justice Datta disagreed with the CIC’s approach. He cited previous judgments and held:

“The expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. Human rights are both progressive and transformative.”

Since Bindal claimed damage to his dignity and career due to public naming without being heard, the Court saw it as a prima facie case of human rights infringement.

The Court also noted that although Bindal didn’t initially raise the human rights aspect before CIC, the matter is significant enough to warrant a fresh look.

The Court sent the case back to CIC with instructions to:

“...reconsider the matter, specifically considering the aspect of human rights violation/s raised by the petitioner and determining whether the information sought falls within the exception carried out in the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.”

Thus, the High Court has opened the door for RTI seekers to access sensitive information if it impacts their fundamental rights, even when dealing with exempted agencies like the CBI.

Case title: Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (W.P.(C) 3171/2018)