Central Information Commission
Mrdhobi Suresh Kumar vs Border Security Force on 30 November, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002262/SB
Dated 30.11.2015
Appellant : Shri Suresh Kumar,
Dhobi, 154 Bn BSF, Narayangarh, Chhehrta,
Amritsar,
Punjab
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General Border Security Force,
(Pers Dte:Rectt Section)
Block No. 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi110003
Date of Hearing : 30.11.2015
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.01.2014
CPIO replied on : 11.03.2014
First Appeal filed on : 13.03.2014
FAA's Order on : 03.04.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 09.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri. Suresh Kumar filed an application dated 27.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), HQ Rajasthan Frontier BSF Directorate General Border Security Force, (Pers Dte: Rectt Section), seeking information on fourteen points relating to SubInspector Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE), 2010 including, (i) why the appellant's result was not declared for SI 2010 Examination and (ii) why the appellant was not informed that his result for the SI 2010 Examination was held back.
2. The CPIO vide reply dated 11.03.2014 denied the information on the ground that as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, BSF is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal dated 13.03.2014 before the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 03.04.2014 informed the appellant that his application was transferred to the Border Security Force. As he was not satisfied with the response of the FAA, the appellant filed second appeal dated 09.07.2014 before the Commission on the ground that CPIO has not provided the complete information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Suresh Kumar was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Ajmal Singh, DIG, BSF attended the audio hearing.
4. The respondent submitted that BSF has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. Nonetheless, information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2014.
Decision:
5. The Commission perused the records. The Commission finds that the respondent informed the appellant that he was found unfit as his height was less by 0.5 cm. However, the information sought by the appellant pertained to his disqualification on the basis of height when the Medical Examination Report specifically states that height should not be a basis for disqualification as the same has been measured at the time of PET.
6. The Commission is aware that under Section 24(1) r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the BSF except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian vs Adarsh Sharma) had held that: "5. .......if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be welladvised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act........................................ It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not........."
7. In view of the above, the Commission would like the BSF to consider the request of the appellant and provide information to the extent possible to the appellant.
8. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer