About 11 officers representing various officers appeared before the CIC, but nobody had any clue whether those accused of violating the Bonded Labour Act were prosecuted or not. This is the 136th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the divisional commissioner of revenue department in Delhi to check and provide the information about the status of prosecution and violations of Bonded Labour System Act 1976 to the appellant.

While giving this judgement on 16 May 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “This appears to be a very serious matter and appears to indicate that though people are charged with having bonded labour, no prosecutions may be taking place. Alternately it means the prosecution is taking place by an agency, which none of the officers appears to be aware of.”

Delhi resident Priyanka Sinha, on 24 July 2010, sought information about statement of pending trial cases and decided cases under section 16 of the Bonded Labour System Act 1976 from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Directorate of Prosecution at Tis Hazari Court. Here is the information she sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act...

The PIO transferred the RTI application to the Labour department and from there on to various other departments.

After not receiving any reply from the PIO for over 50 days, Sinha filed her first appeal.

During the hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO stated that the Directorate had not come across to any first information report (FIR) registered under the relevant provisions of 'the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976' exclusively. While disposing the appeal, the FAA said, the PIO had done his duty in transferring the application to the concerned PIO of the Labour department. He also said the first appeal was found lacking substance.

After the hearing before the FAA, the RTI application was transferred to numerous additional district magistrate (ADM) and sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) as well as to additional police commissioners (ACP) of various divisions of Delhi.

The SDM's stated that according to their records, no cases were registered and therefore the reply may be treated as nil. The ACP (north) responded that seven such cases were pending before the court, and the ACP (South) responded that two cases were pending before the Court. The applicant felt that the responses were contradictory and misleading.

Sinha then approached the CIC with her second appeal. She stated that she found it strange that the Department does not have the data regarding cases when it was clear from the responses of the ACPs that there have been FIRs filed. She stated that the original respondent 'the Directorate of Prosecution' should possess the consolidated data that was requested as it pertains to the prosecution of offenders for which the Directorate is responsible.

During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that PIO and SDM(SV) has gave eight instances of having discovered bonded labours since 2008. BS Kain, PIO, of Directorate of Prosecution stated that no case had been referred to his department for prosecuting anybody under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) System Act 1976.

The CIC said, "About 11 officers representing various officers have come to the Commission but no one seems to have any clue whether those accused of violating the Bonded Labour Act are prosecuted or not. This appears to be a very serious matter and appears to indicate that though people are charged with having bonded labour no prosecutions may be taking place. Alternately it means the prosecution is taking place by an agency which none of the officers appears to be aware of."

While allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the divisional commissioner of  revenue department to check if any prosecutions have been conducted for violation of this Act and provide the information to Sinha before 10 June 2011. In case no prosecutions are being conducted this should be stated, the CIC said in its order.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000649/12392

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_000649_12392_M_56412.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000649

Appellant                                         : Priyanka Sinha

                                                              Delhi-110092

Respondent                                    : BS Kain

                                                            PIO & Additional PP,

                                                            Directorate of Prosecution,

                                                            Tis Hazari Court

                                                            New Delhi-110054