Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ranjita Thakur (Advocate) vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 3 April, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                  के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2023/129177

Smt. Ranjita Thakur (Advocate)                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of External Affairs                         ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :   01.04.2025
Date of Decision                        :   01.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         17.03.2023
PIO replied on                    :         13.04.2023
First Appeal filed on             :         06.05.2023
First Appellate Order on          :         25.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         06.07.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"It is a humble request that under the right to information act 2005, the following copy of the IFS Indian foreign services rules of the ministry of external affairs should be provided:-

Sr.no

1). Para 8(2)(iii) of annexure XII of IFS (PLCA) rules.

2). Para15(2)(1) of annexure XII of IFS (PLCA) rules.

Kindly provide these two rules copies."

The CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 13.04.2023 replied as under:-

"Query No. 1-2. The sought information cannot be shared as per Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act-2005."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 25.05.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 20.03.2025 has been received from CPIO/Under Secretary, MEA reiterating the above facts. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Nithin Kunneparambil - CPIO/Under Secretary, MEA attended the hearing.

The Respondent sought to place reliance on the above reply but was unable to justify applicability of the Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in this case. The Appellant was not present for the hearing.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the instant case, it is noted that the Respondent has denied disclosure of Pay, Leave and Compensation Rules citing Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. The provision of the section 8(1)(a) exempts disclosure of information which is likely to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the state, relations with foreign states, or lead to incitement of an offense. The Respondent has nowhere in writing or even orally during the hearing explained how disclosure of Pay, Leave etc. related Rules governing civil servants of India is likely to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country or in any way adversely impact the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the state, relations with foreign states, or lead to incitement of an offense.

In the given circumstance, this Commission is unable to accept the denial of information by the Respondent under the guise of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, particularly because the Respondent has offered no corroborative arguments to support their reply. Consequently reply sent by the PIO is set aside as legally not maintainable. Since Service Rules governing public officials is available mostly in public domain, there is no reason why the IFS (PLCA) Rules should not be available. Be that as it may, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO/Under Secretary, MEA present during hearing to revisit the Appellant's queries and furnish a suitable revised reply within two weeks of receipt of this order and also submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within a week of sending the revised reply to the Appellant.

The appeal is disposed off with these directions.

Sd/-

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)