Central Information Commission
Mrsubhash Chandra Agrawal vs Prime Minister Office on 1 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110067.
Tel : +911126717355
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001530/VS
Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal,
R/o 1775, Kucha Lattushah,
Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi 110006.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister's Office,
South Block, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2015
Date of Order : 01.12.2015
ORDER
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an application dated 14.09.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking information/documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act) on 17 points, inter alia, pertaining to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
2. The CPIO, by a letter dated 18.09.2013, transferred the request to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Urban Development and the Cabinet Secretariat regarding points relevant to them. Regarding points 1 to 6 and 16, the CPIO informed the appellant that the request was not specific in terms of subject matter and timeframe and collection and compilation of such dispersed information would result in diversion of manpower.
13. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 30.09.2013 against reply dated 18.09.2013, which was decided by order dated 01.11.2013. The CPIO was directed to obtain fresh inputs in respect of point nos. 1 to 6.
4. The CPIO, by a letter dated 21.11.2014, provided inputs to the appellant in respect of point nos. 1 to 6. The appellant filed first appeal on 27.11.2014, which was disposed of by order dated 02.02.2015. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 19.02.2015 under section 19(3) of the Act in this Commission.
Hearing
5. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
6. When the hearing started, the appellant referred to a newspaper report published on 06.02.2015 wherein the Union Home Minister is stated to have said that there was a larger public interest involved in the disclosure of the documents relating to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The appellant, relying on a report of PTI dated 30.07.2015, stated that the former Chief Information Commissioner, Shri Wajahat Habibullah, in an event organized by the Centre for Media Studies, had mentioned that a reason for not disclosing the files relating to the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was that some of the files may not be available.
7. The appellant also mentioned that the present Chief Information Commissioner himself had suggested, as reported in the newspaper "Jagran" dated 15.06.2015, that the policy pertaining to the disclosure of secret files about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose needs review.
8. The appellant said that before he begins arguments on merit on 17 points mentioned in the RTI application, the respondent should indicate whether the requested information is available in the files which are currently in possession of the PMO.
9. The respondent stated that they were not aware of any news items mentioned by the appellant. However, the respondent said that the information pertaining to the items mentioned in the RTI application is available in the records maintained in the PMO.
10. The appellant stated that the respondent has declined to provide the information on points 3 and 4 of the RTI request as being exempt under section 8(1)(a) read with section 8(2) of the Act on the ground that it would prejudicially affect relations with 2 foreign countries. The appellant stated that the matter is of great public interest as the people of India want to know about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The appellant further said that he was not interested in getting the information which would be against national interest. The appellant stated that the Government is the repository of such files and that the public interest is outweighing the protected interests; hence the requested information must be disclosed under section 8(2) of the Act.
11. The respondent stated that the PMO is concerned only with points 1 to 6 of the RTI application and that the remaining points concern other public authorities/Ministries to whom the RTI request has already been transferred under section 6(3) of the Act. The respondent further stated that the information on points 16 and 17 of the RTI request cannot be provided as these are vague and not specific.
12. The respondent further submitted that the requested information pertains to matters, which if disclosed, would jeopardize friendly relations with foreign nations. Therefore, the same is exempt under section 8(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent further stated that this matter has been addressed earlier too by this Commission. The respondent relied upon the decisions of this Commission in case no. CIC/OK/A/2007/001392 dated 16.01.2008 - Nusli Wadia vs Ministry of External Affairs, no.CIC/WB/A/2007/00129 dated 25.01.2008, no.CIC/WB/A/2007/00129A dated 18.02.2008 - Anuj Dhar vs PMO and no.CIC/SM/A/2013/001352/RM dated 17.07.2014 - Chandrachur Ghose vs PMO.
13. The respondent said that a perusal of the orders of this Commission mentioned in para 12 above would make it clear that a conclusion reached by a CPIO under section 8(1)
(a) of the Act is final and should not be interfered with by this Commission. He further submitted that the above said decisions would apply to the present case also and that the decision of the CPIO should be upheld.
14. The respondent further stated that in so far as point nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, it would be difficult to provide the information because the computerized system in the PMO is relatively recent. The system is not so well developed so as to retrieve the information without entering the name of applicant in the computerized system. The respondent also said that the numerous letters and applications to the tune of 1500 to 2000 keep coming in PMO every day, which are diarized. Any input or information about such communications cannot be retrieved unless the name of the person in whose name the reference is diarized is located and fed into the system.
315. The appellant said that it should not be difficult for the PMO to retrieve information about this matter which is not ordinary but is very important being about an iconic person as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He said that the PMO may be having a separate file on this subject as the issue has been in the news for the last about 78 years.
16. The respondent stated that the files pertaining to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose are spread across a wide canvas of information on different subjects. Therefore, in the absence of a proper input from the appellant in this regard, it would be improbable to figure out which of the files pertain to the matter under consideration. The respondent stated that if the names of the persons who have sent communications to the PMO are furnished, it would be convenient for them to retrieve such letters/references and send a suitable response to the appellant.
17. The appellant submitted that he would be satisfied if the information pertaining to point nos. 5 and 6 is provided to him by the PMO and/or any other concerned authority.
18. The appellant said that the pleadings are sufficient to decide the issue and requested that his submissions may be made a part of the order to be passed by this Commission.
19. The appellant submitted that the respondent/PMO may be directed to respond to the queries of the RTI application and provide freeofcost copies of the sought documents.
Discussion
20. After conclusion of the hearing, the appellant has submitted a letter dated 28.09.2015 referring to three news clippings, out of which two had been discussed during the hearing. The third news clipping pertains to an item published on 18.09.2015 (PTI news). This news indicates that the West Bengal Government has made public sixty four secret files held by it related to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Shri Chandra Bose, the grand nephew of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose said that it is the duty of the Central Government to declassify 130 files held with it.
21. In another communication dated 18.10.2015, the appellant has stated that the Prime Minister in a meeting held with family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and others had declared that the PMO and other public authorities will start declassifying the files relating to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose from 23rd January, 2016, and that it had 4 also been declared that the Central Government will endeavour to get such files held by other countries. In this background, the appellant has requested for award of adequate compensation under section 19 (8) (b) of the Act.
22. This Commission, in its decision no.CIC/OK/A/ 2007/001392 dated 16.01.2008 - Nusli Wadia vs Ministry of External Affairs considered, inter alia, the issue pertaining to furnishing of some documents relating to correspondence etc. between the Ministry of External Affairs and PMO, about the claim of "Jinnah House" by appellant's mother. The Ministry of External Affairs took recourse to section 8(1)(a) of the Act. In that case, this Commission remitted the matter back to reexamine the whole matter. This Commission observed that "...the First appellate authority would be justified in disclosing an edited version of the information withholding such of the sensitive information that may prejudicially affect our relations with a foreign State..."
23. In the case mentioned in para 22 above, it was also observed that "...The CPIO has, therefore, invoked provisions of Section 8(1) (a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of only that part of the information that stands denied. It is for the concerned public authority, which is the authorised agency for the purpose, and not for this Commission to take a view as regards applicability of the provisions of Section 8(1)
(a) in this case and the Commission is of the view that there will be no obligation on the part of a public authority to provide information if disclosure of the same prejudicially affects relations with a foreign State, maintenance of relations with which is the responsibility of the MEA. However, the provisions of Section 8(1) have to be read with Section 8(2) and Section 10(1). Under Section 8(2), a public authority may allow access to exempted information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Moreover, under section 10 (1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure."
24. This Commission, in its decisions no. CIC/WB/A/2007/00129 dated 25.01.2008 and no.CIC/WB/A/2007/00129A dated 18.02.2008 - Anuj Dhar vs PMO while dealing with the matter relating to disclosure of information about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, had observed that "As explained to the parties in the hearing, this Commission does not arrogate to itself the authority to adjudicate on matters concerning foreign relations, an issue to decide upon which the authorized agency competent so to do is the Ministry of External Affairs."
525. This Commission, in its decision no. CIC/SM/A/2013/ 001352/RM dated 17.07.2014 - Chandrachur Ghose vs PMO while dealing with the issue of disclosure of information pertaining to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, agreed to the view taken in the cases referred to in para 24 above.
26. Certain news items pertaining to declassification of files with the PMO about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose have been published in the leading newspapers like Times of India, Indian Express, Mail Today dated 15.10.2015. These news items say that Prime Minister has met the family of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and some scholars on 14.10.2015. Prime Minister is stated to have assured the family that the files related to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose would be released for public viewing and that he would also ask foreign governments such as Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and Russia to release documents available with them.
27. This Commission has not called for the files, available with the PMO, regarding the information requested by the appellant. Thus, no views are expressed on the stand of the respondent about applicability of exemption clause available under section 8(1)(a) of the Act.
28. Before making public, the view as mentioned in para 26 above by Prime Minister, the PMO may have considered and evaluated the effect of the declassification of relevant files on relations with foreign countries. As Government is already seized with the matter regarding declassification of the files, there is no need for this Commission to pass any order regarding disclosure of information, particularly taking into account the timelines as indicated in the press.
Decision
29. The matter regarding declassification of the files relating to the requested information should best be considered by the respondent in view of the above facts and circumstances. The respondent is directed to inform the appellant about the decision taken on the question of declassification of the files within one month of the decision taken.
30. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
31. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
6(Vijai Sharma) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dr. M.K. Sharma) Registrar 7