Central Information Commission
Mr.Amit Rewar vs Border Security Force on 6 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00337 dated 21-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Amit Rewar;
Respondent: Border Security Force (BSF)
Decision announced 6.5.2010
FACTS
By an application of 30-7-2008 Shri Amit Rewar, of Jaipur, Rajasthan applied to the DG, BSF seeking the following information:
"4. That during the trial I requested to provide some documents which were essentially required to prepare my defence. The reports of DC (G) and ADIG (G) were not provided to me on that time. Non availability of these reports caused a serious prejudice to the undersigned in defending himself.
5. That in order to challenge the findings and sentence on the second charge at the appropriate forum it is requested that I may kindly be provided with the copies of reports of DC (G) and ADIG (G) regarding the firing incident took place at the HQ 39 BN BSF on 10 Sept. 07, under the provisions of Right to Information Act."
To this Shri Amit Rewar received a response from DIG, Personnel, BSF, Shri Balbir Singh dated 19-8-08 informing him as follows:
"Pursuant to the provision made in section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 your request for providing information about any matter relating to BSF could not be acceded to."
Aggrieved with this decision Shri Amit Rewar moved an appeal before D.G. BSF dated 29-8-08 pleading as follows:
"2. That the undersigned was a patient of major Depressive Disorder and advised to be kept under Unit Medical Officer's supervision, instead he was sent on Border Outpost and forced to remain under command of a Subedar w.e.f. 4.9.2007 to 10.9.2007.
3. That the undersigned was also excused to handle arms and ammunition but forced to perform duties on International Border at a highly smuggling prone area of West Bengal.
4. That the above mentioned facts clearly show that the undersigned was badly harassed by the authorities of 39 BN BSF.1
5. That there were some other incidents in which the basic human rights of the undersigned were clearly violated.
6. That u/s 24 of RTI Act, the Act to apply BSF but the undersigned presents the request in respect of allegations of violation of human rights.' Upon this Shri Amit Rewar received a response, again from Shri Balbir Singh, DIG, Personnel dated 29-9-08 informing him once more that the BSF being covered u/s 24 of the RTI Act no information relating to this organization can be provided. Shri Amit Rewar, however, has then approached this Commission in second appeal with the following prayer:
"That in view of the above submitted facts appellant prays that this Hon'ble Commission may pleased to accept and allow this appeal order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by respondent by set aside and respondent be directed to supply copy of the DC(G) report of incident of firing dated 10th September, 2007. Further penalty under section 20 of the Act be imposed on respondent.' Appellant Shri Amit Rewar's prayer is grounded on the following contentions:
"3. That while being a case of MDD and under treatment of psychiatrist appellant's basic human rights were violated by the above named two officers of BSF, which resulted in an incident of firing for which appellant was charged and tried by a General Security force court (in short GSFC) at SHQ, BSF Siliguri from 15th Jan, 2008 to 18th Feb, 2008 for revision trial on 31st March, 2008. That during investigation and trial appellant was confined to a small room ignoring the medical advice and was ill treated.
4. That an inquiry was conducted by BSF authorities for the incident of firing for which appellant was charged, tried and sentenced by GSFC and a report was prepared known as DC( G) report of incident of September, 2007.' In his appeal Shri Amit Rewar also objected to the procedure followed in this case as below:
"3. That BSF has a qualified exemption under section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 information and reports pertaining to violation of human rights and corruption are required to be supplied as per RTI Act, 2005. Whether a particular information pertains to violation of human rights or corruption is question of facts and law both and required to be decided by this Hon'ble Commission. Respondent cannot be given a free hand to decide whether particular information is covered under proviso to section 24 of not.2
4. that the respondent was under an obligation to seek approval of Hon'ble Commission under second proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 in order to ascertain whether the information asked for is covered under section 24 or not. Respondent himself cannot decide that whether the information relates to human rights violation or corruption."
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 6-5-2010. The following are present.
Appellant Shri Amit Rewar Respondents Shri M. Tripathi, DIG, PERS, BSF Shri Eapen P.U, Comdt, Staff, BSF Appellant Shri Amit Rewar was asked why, when the RTI request of 30-7-08 concerned the outcome of the GSFC trial (decision announced on 18- 2-08) the allegation of violation of human rights raised in first appeal referred only to a posting under the command of a Subedar from 4-9-2007 to 10-9-
07.To this Shri Rewar responded by stating that it was because of such harassment as mentioned in his first appeal and reiterated before this Commission, the incident resulting in the GSFC Trial Court and that the report sought by him which was refused, discussed this very issue.
Respondent Shri M. Tripathi, DIG, Personnel submitted that the GSFC trial of Shri Amit Rewar was conducted observing due process of law and all relevant documents held by the BSF had, in fact, provided to the appellant. The G. Cell of the BSF is an Intelligence Unit and appellant's plea for obtaining copies of documents of this Unit have arisen only from conjecture that the documents sought related to his case. Appellant Shri Amit Rewar, however, submitted that these documents were actually asked for by the trial court and submitted in sealed cover but neither seen nor taken into consideration by the trial court.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the arguments and examined the records we find that there is no allegation of human rights allegation made in the original 3 application of 30-7-08 by appellant Shri Amit Rewar to BSF, although, there is indeed a reference to imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service. Subsequently, in his appeal Shri Amit Rewar has once more not raised the issue of his detention as being an allegation of violation for human right but has mentioned altogether different incidents of alleged insensitivity to his human rights.
In his appeal before us as quoted above appellant has also challenged the authority of the CPIO, BSF who has ruled upon the issue of allegation of human rights violation. On this specific question the guidelines for public authorities issued by this Commission for those organisations covered by the Second Schedule of the RTI Act are as follows:
"1. The public authority shall refer the case to the Central Information Commission in such matters where the information sought for is in respect of allegation of violation of human rights.
2. The reference to the Central Information Commission by the public authority will mean that Public Authority is convinced that the allegations levelled by the applicant in regard to the violation of human rights and the information sought for thereupon are related.
3. The material proposed to be relied upon for the purposes of providing information shall be provided by the public authority to this Commission, if asked for by the CIC.
4. Appellant, if aggrieved, will still have the right to approach as per 19 (1) and 19 (3) of the Act.
5. The CPIO of public authority at the time of replying to the appellant will advise the appellant the details of the First Appellate Authority in case he is aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO.
6. The Judicial determination of the case in the event of perceived inadequacy, incorrectness and vagueness of request, will only be made by the Commission at the time of deciding the complaint/ appeal filed u/s 18 or 19 of the Act.
7. The time taken for eliciting approval of the Commission shall not be reckoned for computing time of 45 days for furnishing reply as stipulated in section 24 (1) of the RTI Act.' As will be seen it is the CPIO who must decide whether the records with regard to the allegation levelled by an applicant of violation of human rights and the information sought for, are related. In the present case, however, appellant has been unable to establish any such relationship except 4 conjecture. In having admitted that the relevant documents were, in fact, submitted in sealed cover before the trial court but not considered by that court Shri Rewar's appeal would amount to his requesting this Commission to sit in judgment on the results of the GSFC trial, which this Commission has no authority to do. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6-5-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6-5-2010 5