Public Information Officer has not explained in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation.
While denying the information Under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, the Public Information Officer has not explained in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation.
Order dated 14.03.2017 in Second Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/002299-BJ The Central Information Commission has stated that (https://dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/CIC-BS-A-2015-002299-BJ--.pdf):
The Commission finds the following observation of the Hon’ble High Court Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 pertinent in this matter. “13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 had held that : “19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation............... Page 3 of 3 22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge.”
Furthermor, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Adesh Kumar v. UOI and Ors. W.P. (C) 3542/ 2014 dated 16.12.2014 had held as under: “10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the FAA also indicates that the aspect as to how the disclosure of information would impede prosecution has not been considered. Merely, citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act would not absolve the public authority from discharging its onus as required to claim such exemption. Thus, neither the FAA nor the CIC has questioned the Public Authority as to how the disclosure of information would impede the prosecution.”
“Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that the queries raised in the RTI application had not been answered adequately and no justification could be provided by the respondent to establish how investigation under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 would get impeded with the disclosure of the information. The Commission therefore instructs the respondent to furnish details sought by the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order”