Delhi HC stays CIC's order directing IB to provide information related to issuance of LOC

The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed the order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to provide information related to the issuance of Lookout Circular (LOC) against the respondent. IB has sought the quashing of the order terming it illegal.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma issued notice to Jayesh Vishnu Parab on the petition and directed them to file a reply. The CIC's order has stayed.

The matter now has been listed on February 11, 2023.

Why has IB moved? It is in your favour, the court asked.

Advocate Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, standing counsel for IB submitted that the reasoning, I believe is very flawed; it defeats the purpose of LOC. If I give details that LOC is for a,b and c they will leave the country in some other manner.

The Court said that a citizen has the right to travel. Why does he not have the right to know that? There has to be some rationale Let's not go down that road.

The IB has challenged an order passed by CIC on August 31, 2021, directing it to provide a revised reply on the application of Parab.

The CIC had directed the petitioner to issue a revised reply to the respondent, whether any Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued against the applicant, date of issuance of LOC, and date of expiry of the said LOC, in furtherance of the respondent's application dated September 13, 2018.

It is submitted by the IB that the CIC in its order has held that the information sought by the respondent does not fall in the exemption afforded to the petitioner under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.

The CIC has passed the said order primarily on the ground that the denial of the information sought by the respondent would lead to a violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty and thereby will not be covered by the protection granted under Section 24(1) of the Act, the plea stated.

IB also submitted that the said order is ex-facie illegal and non-est in law. The CIC has passed the same in blatant disregard of the exemption and protection afforded to the petitioner by Section 24 of the Act.

The learned CIC has erred in law by holding that Section 24 would not be applicable in the instant case as the denial of the information sought by Parab, the petition stated.

( With inputs from ANI )