Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Prime Minister'S Office on 25 June, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/117534-BJ
Dr. Nutan Thakur
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary,
Prime Minister's Office,
South Block, New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2020
Date of Decision : 25.06.2020
Date of RTI application 27.11.2018
CPIO's response 13.12.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.01.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 05.02.2019
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.04.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the details of the various directions/instructions issued by the Prime Minister and/or the Prime Minister Office to Ministry of Defence or other public authorities in the wake of the Rafale Deal Controversy related to the purchase of 36 Multirole Fighter Aircraft for a price estimated to be worth Rs.58,000 crore (7.8 billion euros) by the Defence Ministry of India from France Dassault Aviation.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 13.12.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.02.2019, upheld the CPIO's response.
Page 1 of 4HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nutan Thakur through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Under Secretary/CPIO through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) had been incorrectly invoked by the CPIO in his reply dated 13.12.2018. She further submitted that since the subject matter of the RTI pertained to Rafale Deal Controversy, the information sought for should be made available in public interest. In its reply, the Respondent substantiated his above noted reply and submitted that directions/instructions issued by the Prime Minister and/or the Prime Minister Office to Ministry of Defence or other public authorities in the wake of the Rafale Deal Controversy has strategic and security aspects not fit for disclosure. Thus, the disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. In response to a query, the Respondent submitted that if any parliament questions were raised with respect to the subject matter of the RTI application, answers to the same would have been furnished the Ministry of Defense. He, however, further clarified that he was not sure if any parliament questions or press releases had been answered/made with respect to the subject matter of the RTI application.
Having heard both the parties, the Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015) wherein it was held as under:
"76. But neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right to Information have been provided in absolute terms. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 Clause 1(a) are restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on the grounds of national and societal interest. Similarly Section 8, clause 1 of Right to Information Act, 2005, contains the exemption provisions where right to information can be denied to public in the name of national security and sovereignty, national economic interests, relations with foreign states etc. Thus, not all the information that the Government generates will or shall be given out to the public. It is true that gone are the days of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable also but it is equally true that there are some information which if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more harm than good to our national interest... if not domestically it can make the national interests vulnerable internationally and it is more so possible with the dividing line between national and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid advancement of science and technology and global economy. It has to be understood that rights can be enjoyed without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries will not further the national interest. And when it comes to national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, the regulation or Page 2 of 4 supervision of banking, insurance and other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure or borrowing and foreign investment could in some cases harm the national economy, particularly if released prematurely. However, lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013, decided On 05.03.2013 had, in the context of an RTI application seeking Certified Copy of the letter written by the Chief Minister of JandK, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India and records pertaining to any action taken, held as under:
"7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The information sought pertains to a correspondence which emanated apparently from the Chief Minister of JandK, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India. Even according to the petitioner, the said letter pertains to the issue of deployment of defence forces in the State of JandK. There is no gain saying that JandK is a sugeneris State within the Union of India in respect of which the respondents would exchange information with State authorities from time having security implications. The background circumstances do point to the fact that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications. The judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other. In this particular case, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the information sought has security implications. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court would be slow to interfere with the decision arrived at in that behalf."
The High Court of Bombay at Goa in Public Information Officer Joint Secretary to the Governor Raj Bhavan, Donapaula, Goa & Ors. Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Goa, Writ Petition No. 478 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 237 of 2011 "Under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, Governor enjoys an immunity and in view of such immunity, no direction can be issued and no order can be passed under the RTI Act, which has an effect of requiring the Governor to disclose any information under the RTI Act. By reason of Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the Governor enjoys complete immunity and is not answerable to any Court in exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office and any act done or purporting to be done by him in exercise and performance of his duties; but the immunity granted under Article 361(1) of the Constitution of India does not take away the powers of the Court to examine the validity of his actions including on the ground of mala fides. The Governor or the PIO in his office cannot claim immunity from disclosure of any information under the RTI Act, Page 3 of 4 as in respect of non sovereign functions performed by the Governor, he would not be entitled to claim freedom from law on the basis of sovereign immunity. His non-sovereign functions and actions would be subject to law of the land. He would be bound by the RTI Act and would not be able to claim any sovereign immunity from disclosing information in respect of his non-sovereign functions. In this connection, a reference may be made to the exemption provided under Clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which exempts disclosure of an information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, amongst other things. The exemption against disclosure of an information under the RTI Act is restricted in respect of sovereign functions of the President or the Governor only to the extent it is protected under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act or under Article 361 of the Constitution and no more."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 25.06.2020
Page 4 of 4