The Delhi High Court has made a significant observation regarding the applicability of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to intelligence agencies like the CBI. The court held that the reason for including a person's name in the CBI’s list of 'Undesirable Contact Men' (UCM) is not automatically exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act if it relates to human rights violations.
The case was filed by Vinod Kumar Bindal, a Chartered Accountant whose name was allegedly published in the CBI’s UCM list. This list was also uploaded on the CBI's official website and circulated in newspapers, cautioning officials against dealing with individuals named in it. Mr. Bindal claimed this publication caused him reputational and professional harm.
He filed an RTI application seeking detailed information about the inclusion of his name in the list, but the request was denied by the CBI, citing Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. As per the 2011 government notification, the CBI is included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is generally exempt from providing information.
Read also: Delhi High Court Slams Jail Authorities: Repeating Rejected Grounds for Parole Unacceptable
However, the proviso to Section 24(1) clearly states:
"The information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section."
Despite this, both the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed his appeals, noting a lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations.
Challenging the CIC’s order, Mr. Bindal approached the Delhi High Court. Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing the matter, emphasized:
“Prima facie, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument that the publication of his name, in the manner aforesaid, has resulted in a violation of human rights as the same has harmed his dignity and professional standing.”
The Court referred to prior decisions, including Union of India v. CIC & Anr., which clarified that:
“The expression ‘human rights’ cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. Human rights are both progressive and transformative.”
It was also acknowledged that while the CBI is indeed an exempted organization under the RTI Act, the petitioner had raised valid concerns regarding the impact on his dignity and livelihood. The Court observed that the matter of human rights violation was not adequately examined by the CIC.
In conclusion, the High Court remanded the matter back to the CIC, directing it to freshly consider whether the inclusion of Mr. Bindal’s name in the UCM list violated his human rights and thus fell within the exception provided under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
“The CIC is directed to reconsider the matter, specifically considering the aspect of human rights violations raised by the petitioner.”
The case reaffirms that even intelligence agencies are not entirely outside the RTI’s scope—particularly in cases involving human dignity and professional rights.
Case title: Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (W.P.(C) 3171/2018)
