The Delhi HC on 16.01.2019, in EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE  v  CPIO, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU[1], allowed the  petition that had been made  against the  Central Information Commission ‘s order which had rejected the  petitioner’s second appeal made under  Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby the petitioner wanted to seek information from IB, which  was eventually rejected while citing reasons that the IB is faces exclusion  under the  RTI Act  further stating that such information does not revolve around  violations against human rights or corruption. While on the other hand the petitioner contended that such information undoubtedly was related to violation of human rights.

FACTS:
The petitioner being arrested in connection to the Mumbai Train Blast case, by the Anti Terrorism squad, further stated that while the process of investigation was on, members belonging to the Indian Mujahideen were also a part of such blast. It was the claim of the petitioner that information was collected by IB regarding Indian Mujahideen’s involvement followed by a report that was submitted to the Home Minister that suggested a review of such evidence in the concerned blast. The concerned report gave indications of the involvement of the Indian Mujahideen and not the earlier accused which also included the petitioner himself.

A judgment given by the Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) Court, tried and convicted the petitioner. An application was made under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act by the petitioner before the Central Public Information Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs to seek the original copy of the report submitted by IB, that was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs which was subsequently rejected by CPIO. While denying such information to be sought by concluding that the IB was excluded from the  RTI Act.

Being aggrieved, an appeal (Section 19(1) of the RTI Act) was made before the First Appellate Authority to seek the report submitted by IB while further claiming that specified under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act which revolved around human rights violation and corruption allegations.

DECISION HELD BY DELHI HIGH COURT:

The Delhi High Court while setting aside the order, gave an order for remanding the matter to The  CIC for considering the matter afresh with due regard to the observations made in the order.