The Central Information Commission ruled that the Black Money Special Investigation Team (SIT) is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Based on hearing a complaint filed by Venkatesh Nayak of the NGO Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) the CIC held that the SIT was a public authority and must provide relevant information to the public as per the RTI rules. It directed the SIT to appoint a Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) toward this purpose.
Mr. Nayak had sought information from the SIT regarding letters written by former HSBC Geneva employee Herve Falciani to its Chairman, but the Department of Revenue that handled the complaint denied him the information.
In December, 2015, the CPIO of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Officer on Special Duty) had, in a letter to Mr. Nayak, denied information on submissions of Mr. Falciani to the SIT citing section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Mr. Nayak approached the CIC not to seek the information denied, but rather to challenge the competence of the CPIO, CBDT to make a decision in a matter that was not under his charge. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Department of Revenue upheld the CPIO’s rejection order but directed that the entire RTI application be sent to the Black Money SIT for making a decision.
Mr. Nayak requested the CIC to declare the SIT as a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act arguing that being a multi-member body, as per the Government’s May 2014 notification, the SIT was clearly a ‘body’ and as this body was constituted by a notification in the Official Gazette, the SIT met both criteria for being recognised as a public authority under Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act.
The CIC gave its order dated October 10 after listening to both sides of the argument, and Santosh Kumar, Under Secretary, Pranabh Kumar, Assistant Section Officer and Gaurav Pundir, Under Secretary from the relevant tax departments deposed before the Commission.
“It’s a welcome decision from the CIC on the eve of the 13th anniversary of RTI. We hope that the SIT will comply with rather than challenge this decision,” Mr. Nayak told The Hindu over phone. Stating that it took 23 months for this decision to materialise, starting from when he had first filed the RTI appeal, Mr. Nayak said the delay was because of the pendency in the Commission.
He is planning to file a fresh application with the SIT to seek the information that had been denied to him.
