Pavit Singh vs Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14827/2025 and CM APPL. 60984/2025

Date of Decision : 06.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

PAVIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Karishma Maria, Advocate.

versus

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Gautam Yadav , Mr. Umar Hashmi
and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates for
R-UOI.
Mr Anupam S Sharrma (SPP CBI)
with Ms. Harpreet Kalsi , Mr.
Vashishth Rao , Ms. Amisha P dash ,
Mr. Abhiyant Singh , Mr. Mayank
Tyagi , Ms Pragati Ojha, Advocates
for R-CBI.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“A. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated
28.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Central Information Commission in Pavit
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:39:08

Singh v. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi [Second
Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2024/126536]; and

B. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the
interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out from
the status report dated 09.05.2022 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigatin
(‘CBI’ ) that the CBI had sent a Self-Contained Note to the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi Police dated 16.10.2019 for taking action against the petitioner
and his father on the ground that the allegations of blackmailing against
them were substantiated by the recorded statements of seven property
owners/occupants. The petitioner, thus, contends that the petitioner is
entitled for the recorded statement or atleast names of purported seven
property owners/occupants.
3. The information was denied by the Public Information Officer
(‘ PIO’ ) and the First Appeallate Authority. The Petitioner unsuccessfully
challenged the order before the Second Appeallate authorities. Paragraph
No.8 of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Second Appeallate
authoritiy, Central Information Commission (‘ CIC ’) is extracted as under:-
“8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the
CPIO has given an appropriate reply and rightly claimed exemption U/s
8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Upon the Commission’s query on the appellant’s
involvement in the issue therein, the Respondent submitted that the
appellant’s role surfaced in the allegation of blackmailing on the basis of
recorded statements of the aforesaid seven persons which was given to
the Respondent in State confidence and since the seven persons
statements were given under State confidence, the respondent claimed
exemption U/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. With these observations, the
Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.”

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:39:08

4. It thus, appears that Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 (‘RTI Act’) has been invoked to deny the information. Section 8(1)(g)
of the RTI Act is extracted as under:-
“Section 8 (1) ...
..
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or
physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;


5. A plain reading of the provision shows that information provided in
confidence for law enforcement purposes is exempt from disclosure. The
statements in question were given to the CBI by seven individuals in the
course of a preliminary inquiry directed by this Court. As recorded in the
status report filed by the CBI, these statements substantiated the allegations
of blackmailing against the petitioner.
6. The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Sayyed
1
Hussain Abbas Rizvi held that the expression life in Section 8(1)(g) must
be construed liberally and that the authority is entitled to form an opinion on
the likelihood of danger. The Court observed:
“If in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or
possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to
bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.”

7. The petitioner argues that he needs the statements to challenge their
veracity. However, the RTI Act is not a substitute for criminal or civil
remedies. It is meant for accessing information held by public authorities to
promote transparency, and not for collaterally challenging investigation
material. Under the guise of the RTI Act, these statements cannot be
directed to be furnished.

1
(2012) 13 SCC 182
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:39:08

8. The Court is of the view that the CPIO rightly invoked the exemption
under Section 8(1)(g) and the CIC correctly upheld it. No ground for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The Court,
therefore, grants liberty to the petitioner to challenge the veracity or the
existence of such statements in accordance with law.
9. With these observations, the instant petition along with the pending
application stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 6, 2026
Nc







Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:13.05.2026
19:39:08