Publishing name in ‘CBI list’ may breach rights

NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC has observed that inclusion of an individual’s name in an intelligence agency’s list of ‘Undesirable Contact Men’ (UCM) and its publication in newspapers and on an official website prima facie violates “human rights” under Section 24(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

While Section 24(1) exempts intelligence and security agencies listed in the Second Schedule from RTI obligations, the provision to the section allows for disclosure of information involving corruption or human rights violations.

Justice Sachin Datta was hearing a Chartered Accountant’s plea against the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) dismissal of his RTI application. The petitioner’s name had appeared in a UCM list circulated by the CBI, with news clippings—bearing the agency’s emblem, published both in print and online. These reports cautioned government officials against associating with or accepting hospitality from those named.

Seeking clarity, the petitioner filed an RTI application with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to know the reasons behind his inclusion and the process followed. The application was rejected by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Policy Division), who serves as the CPIO, citing a 2011 government notification that exempted the CBI under Section 24(1). His appeals before the First Appellate Authority and the CIC were both rejected. In his petition before the High Court, the petitioner argued that public naming without due process amounted to professional and social ostracisation, infringing his dignity and fundamental rights. The Court held that while CBI is generally exempt, the provision to Section 24(1) clearly mandates disclosure where allegations of corruption or human rights violations are involved. “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,” it noted.

The Court added that the term “human rights” under the RTI Act must not be interpreted narrowly. However, it observed that the petitioner had not previously raised the issue of human rights violation before the CIC or appellate authority. The Court remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh adjudication, directing it to consider the human rights aspect under the RTI exception clause.