Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Indian Air Force on 1 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/IAIRF/A/2021/660904 +
CIC/IAIRF/A/2021/660631
In the matter of:
Samir Sardana
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services
Air Head Quarters (Vayu Bhawan)
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 011
2. Central Public Information Officer
HQ WAC Indian Air Force
Subroto Park, New Delhi - 110 010
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 05/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 24/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 23/02/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 16/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023 Date of Decision : 01/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Wing Commander Devender and CPIO, present over VC at CIC alongwith Wing Commander Ashmita Dhawade, CPIO, WAC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. With reference to CAG Audits Provide details of the audits done by the CAG or any other agency, of the Weapon systems (missiles), radars (stand alone and as part of ADS), EWS (E-1
Warfare systems) and Early warning technologies (AWACS and Radars) inducted into the IAF (Post Acquisition), in the last 5 years, as under.
- Name of Audit Agency
- Nature of Audit
- Date of Audit
- And other related information.
2. With reference to Tests done by IAF (in India and overseas) 2.1 Provide the dates, locations and name of weapon systems (missiles- land and air), radars (standalone and as part of ADS), EWS (E-Warfare systems) and Early warning technologies (AWACS and Radars) tested by the IAF in the last 5 years, as part of a Domestic Vendor Evaluation Procedure (Pre-Procurement/ Acquisition Order/Contract) 2.2 Provide the dates, locations and names of weapon systems (missiles - land and air),radars (standalone and as part of ADS), EWS (E-Warfare systems) and Early warning technologies (AWACS and Radars) tested by the IAF in the last 5 years, as part of a Global Vendor Evaluation Procedure (Pre- Procurement/ Acquisition Order/Contract). 2.3 And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated his written submissions dated 27.02.2023. He had withdrawn case no. 660904 through these submissions and pressed for information on case no. 660631. He submitted that the PIO and the Public authority, in question, are oblivious of the need and concepts of transparency and accountability.
He further stated that in 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3)
333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every publicact, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."
Furthermore, he relied on the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decision in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C)3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
2"The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 27.02.2023. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had provided a suitable point-wise reply. Moreover, the FAA vide order dated 23.02.2023 held that in respect of points no. (1)&(9), the CPIO had provided the available information to the appellant as sought. He clarified that information which was available in the records was provided by the CPIO. The CPIO is expected to provide only that information which is available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because it has been asked. In respect of points no. (2) to (6) it was observed by the FAA that the appellant had sought the information with regard to dates, locations and name of weapon systems (Missiles-Land & Air), Radars, EWS (E-Warfare Systems) etc tested by the Indian Air Force in the last 5 years as a part of a Domestic Vendor Evaluation Procedure (Pre-Procurement/Acquisition order/Contract). Since, the information sought by the appellant is sensitive in nature, public revelation of the same may lead to its subsequent availability to adversaries and this will have a direct bearing on the security and strategic interest of the state. Hence, the same was rightly denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. In respect of points no. (7) and (8) of the RTI application, it was observed that CPIO in his RTI reply had provided the available information to the appellant as sought vide these paras. He further clarified that the information which was available in the records was provided by the CPIO. The CPIO is expected to provide only that information which is available with him. He also clarified that equipping the military with the latest technology and modernising the existing inventory of weapons and surveillance systems is crucial for any country. Accordingly, defence forces as an organisation are involved in a continuous process of upgrading its capability which is based on the threats perceived 3 from its adversaries and there is also a matter of regional dominance envisaged therein. The procurement of any defence equipment for the Indian Air Force is primarily based on its meeting the laid down qualitative requirements which is itself dictated by the projected operations requirements based on the factors mentioned above. Accordingly, the equipments are shortlisted, tested and assessed critically on their capabilities by specialists at various levels and the best possible defence equipment that meets the required capabilities is selected. Therefore, information cannot be provided relating to conduct of trials on any equipment at various procurement stages, as part of capital procurement process, carries with it information which is of very crucial significance in terms of operational requirements, range/endurance of equipment/platform being tested, and capabilities held with IAF and its limitations, requirement of integration of a specific weapon, range of Radars etc. The information on these trials over the years if provided in public domain may be prejudicial to the security of the nation as the superficial and ordinary details may hold a potentiality for major revelation about the structure and functioning of armed forces. Therefore, it was rightly denied u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
The FAA had suitably explained each and every point of the CPIO's reply and had justified the denial. The appellant is clearly misusing the RTI Act and is seeking all and sundry information which are voluminous and a burden on the public authority which also lacks public interest.
In this regard, it is noteworthy to recall the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its decision dated 21.09.2021 in the matter of La Fin Financial Services Private Ltd vs Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd while deciding a frivolous application by a plaintiff had observed as under:
"19. Because this is clearly a vexatious and mischievous proceeding that has unnecessarily wasted the Court's time, I can think of no reason to withhold an order of costs against the Plaintiffs. The quantum of costs cannot be trivial. Amended Section 35 clearly intends the power of ordering costs to be used as a deterrent to prevent parties from making such frivolous applications. It would be meaningless to order a paltry amount. Plaintiffs such as this one will understand that Courts are not playgrounds, and litigation is not a pastime.
20. There will, therefore, be an order of costs against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant to be paid within two weeks from 4 today in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs. If not paid in that time, the costs will carry interest at 9% per annum, and the Defendant is entitled to put this order into execution against the Plaintiff for recovery of these costs. "
Decision:
In view of the above discussion, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing such vexatious RTI applications on all and sundry subject matters which amounts to harassment of the public authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5