On September 18, 2017, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a rather progressive order, held that the Central Bureau of Investigation cannot be completely exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005.

This Order came after an RTI application, seeking information relating to the corruption in the agency, was declined, while citing the exemption under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2005.

Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru, in his order, observed that, “It is apparent from the plain reading of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation are not excluded from the purview. The petitioner contended that since the information sought related to allegations of corruption, the same were not excluded from the scope of Section 24(1) of the Act.”

While the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the proviso must be read in a restricted sense and that only information pertaining to allegations of corruption relating to the public authority – in this case CBI – was excluded from the purview of Section 24(1) of the Act, hence the Respondents should not be allowed access to the information as they had also sought information, pertaining to the allegations of corruption in other organisations.

However, this submission was countered by the argument that, that the information sought by him had become stale and, he be permitted to file a fresh application under the Act.

The Court, thus ruling in favor of the Respondents, held that, “The petition be disposed of by directing the petitioner to examine the respondent’s request. The information sought by the respondent would not be denied on the ground that CBI is excluded from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24(1) of the However, the petitioner is at liberty to examine whether the information sought is otherwise exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Act. In the event the petitioner is of the view that the information sought is exempt under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Act, the same would be communicated to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. If aggrieved, the respondent would be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be advised.”