Captain Amit Singh vs Union Of India & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~39
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14408/2023, CM APPL. 57090/2023 & CM APPL.
14690/2024

Date of Decision : 22.04.2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

CAPTAIN AMIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Mishra
Divya Santosh, Mr. Sanyam Jain, Mr.
P. Rohit Ram, Ms. Khushboo Singhal
Advs.



versus



UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Anjana Gosain and Ms.Akansha
Choudhary, Advs.
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Amit Mishra, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal,
Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kharbanda, Mr. Shivam Goel. Ms.
Shrijeta Pratik, Advs. for R3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 1 of 6

1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned
order, dated 22.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Central Information
Commissioner in CIC/MOCAV/A/2022/654536, and
b) Direct the Respondents to provide information sought by the Petitioner
vide his RTI Application dated 30.05.2022, and
c) Pass such other or further order(s) / direction(s), which may be deemed
fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances
of the present case to meet the ends of justice.

2. The genesis of the present petition lies in an application filed by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “ RTI
Act ”), whereby, he had sought certain information regarding an accident
involving a Boeing 737-800 aircraft. It has been submitted that on
11.10.2018, the said aircraft, while taking off for its journey from Trichy to
Dubai, struck the Instrument Landing System (ILS) localiser antennae.
3. However, the petitioner’s application was rejected by the Central
Public Information Officer (hereinafter, “ CPIO ”), on the ground of
exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It may be relevant to
extract the said provision hereunder:
“ 8. Exemption from disclosure of information : (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen,-
…
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
…”
4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (hereinafter, “ FAA ”), which was also dismissed. The
operative part of the order passed by the FAA has been extracted below:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 2 of 6

“The Final Report of the accident involving B737 aircraft registered as
VT-AYD on 11th Oct 2018 while operating flight IX611 has been made
public by DG, AAIB and is available on AAIB website. However, the
information requested in the application pertains to evidence collected
during the investigation and cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (h) of
Right to Information Act, 2005. Additionally, it is protected from
disclosure under Rule 17(g) of Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and
Incidents) Rules, 2017.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the petitioner filed a second
appeal before the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, “ CIC ”),
which also came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the information was
wrongly denied by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI
Act. It is submitted that the investigation in question had been concluded
long before the orders were passed by the CPIO and FAA. It is, therefore,
argued that the ground of exemption under Section 8(1)(h) could not have
been taken by the aforesaid authorities.
7. It appears from the record of the case that the FAA, while rejecting
the first appeal, had assigned certain additional grounds that had not been
taken by the CPIO in his reply. The FAA had observed that the information
sought was not only exempted under Section 8(1)(h) but also under Rule 17
(g) of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents & Incidents) Rules, 2017.
However, the CIC, in the impugned order, nowhere deals with the said
additional ground.
8. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the operative portion of
the impugned order passed by the CIC:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 3 of 6

“Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during
hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of
the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the
Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the
Commission is warranted in this case. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly.”

9. A bare perusal of the CIC’s order would indicate that it has assigned
no reasons for upholding the order of the FAA. It has failed to deal with the
additional ground relied upon by the FAA for the denial of information.
Instead, the CIC has merely directed the CPIO to furnish a copy of his
written submission to the petitioner. The CIC, in passing such an order, has
failed to satisfactorily discharge its obligations as an appellate authority
under the RTI Act inasmuch as it has passed a mechanical order, without
dealing with the grounds taken by the lower authority.
1
10. This Court, in SR Dass v. CPIO & Nodal Officer and Anr . , set aside
an order of the CIC and remanded it back for reconsideration as the same
was passed in a cryptic manner. Para 9 of the said judgement has been
reproduced below:
“9. Without going into the merits of the submissions made, as the
Impugned Order has not discussed the above issue and has, in a cryptic
manner, disposed of the Appeal in form of a direction as reproduced
hereinabove, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the Impugned Order be
set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned CIC for deciding
the Appeal on merits and in accordance with the law.”
11. The Supreme Court has, in multiple judgements, emphasized the
necessity of passing reasoned orders. In Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya
2
Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney , the Apex Court made the
following observations in paras 8 and 9:

1
W.P.(C) 8959/2020, order dated 11.11.2020.
2
(2009) 4 SCC 240.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 4 of 6

“8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench
of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 669], is that people must have confidence in the judicial
or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a
person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also,
giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an
essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief,
must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an
order of affirmation.
9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case [(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri)
669] it has been observed that: (SCC p. 613, para 36)
“36. … The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an
order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional
authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under
challenge.”
The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of
affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the
order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that
even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a
contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss
appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the
lower authority.”
12. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court regarding the
3
importance of recording of reasons in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. , and Siemens
4
Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India.
13. Therefore, keeping in mind all of the above, the impugned order is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the CIC for fresh consideration,
while leaving all rights and contentions open.
14. Let the CIC to deal with the petitioner’s appeal with due expedition
but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order passed today.

3
(2010) 4 SCC 785.
4
(1976) 2 SCC 981.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 5 of 6

15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 22, 2026
Tr/sv




Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 14408/2023 Page 6 of 6