New Delhi: The CBI has been directed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to provide details of disproportionate assets cases registered by the probe agency against public servants.
The direction was given after an RTI applicant had sought the information of all such cases since 1980 but the agency expressed difficulties to provide all the details since records prepared before computerisation began would be difficult to cull out.
During the hearing, CBI submitted that the desired information was not being maintained centrally in the manner the Appellant had wanted to know.
CBI further clarified that prior to the computerisation of case records, all data was maintained manually and retrieval of the information desired by the RTI applicant for the period prior to the computerisation would be impossible since it would require each and every case file to be examined, Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra noted in his order.
CBI was, however, willing to provide all the information which was mentioned centrally in digital form.
"We direct the CPIO of the CBI to provide all the available information across its various offices on the disproportionate assets cases for the period for which such data is centrally available.
The CPIO is also directed to provide similar information, as available centrally, on all cases of sanctions sought against public servants for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act," he said on the plea by Subhash Agrawal.
Regarding another plea, Mishra directed CBI to provide details of complaints received against retired judges of High Court and Supreme Court including former Chief Justices of India and action taken on them.
Mishra, however, added that in the cases which are under investigation, the CBI may take a call on the disclosure of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
He said "the file noting and other related documents showing the manner in which a particular complaint against a former Chief Justice of India had been dealt with should be provided to the Appellant.
It is not right to say that such file noting is held by the CBI in a fiduciary capacity as argued by the Respondent during the hearing.