Case Diary protected from disclosure under RTI: CIC

The case diary maintained by police may not be disclosed even after closure of probe as larger public interests warrants against its disclosure, the Central Information Commission has held.

The Commission, however, directed the Delhi Police to disclose reasons for not prosecuting police officials along with advocates in the 2013 Kapashera clashes in which two each of police officials and advocates were injured.

The Directorate of Prosecution at Tis Hazari court, the respondent in the case before the CIC, claimed that the case diary maintained by police contains minute details of investigation, dates and places of visits by various investigators, private aspects of several persons, security threatening information etc.

The court officials argued before the Commission that if case diary be disclosed it will threaten the process of police functioning and seriously impede the probe and prosecution in all cases and thus even under the RTI Act, it cannot be disclosed.

The Commission's observation comes on a case related to one Arun Sharma who had sought from the Delhi Police entire copies of case diary.

The Commission also said that while the judicial file can be obtained from the concerned court, the police file is prohibited from disclosure under CrPC.

Sharma claimed that after the clashes between police and advocates, cross FIRs were filed by the both groups. However, police have only continued with the prosecution of the advocates but closed the probe against its own officers allegedly involved in the incident.

He alleged that non disclosure of copy of police file will favour the accused police officials.

"The very fact that the police department used the discretionary power in its command and closed the case against the police-accused, while continuing it against advocate-accused gave rise to suspicion of departmental bias in favour of police," Sharma contended.

After hearing both sides, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu held that based on provisions of Section 172 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 8(1) and (2) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds that there is a protection available for the Case Diary against disclosure and in larger public interest it cannot be revealed.