Central Information Commission
Shri Nusli Wadia vs Ministry Of External Affairs (Mea) on 1 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan
New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00245
Dated, the 1st. October, 2008
Name of the Appellant: Shri Nusli Wadia,
Mumbai.
Name of the Respondent: Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)
South Block New Delhi - 110011.
Date of Decision: 01.10.2008
ORDERS
Vide our Decision Notice dated 19.06.2008, we have ordered as follows:-
"MEA will now initiate an exercise to determine which part of the information sought by appellant is sensitive or is likely to affect adversely India's relations with a foreign State, and duly record its reasons as to why disclosure of any part of the information withheld from disclosure would affect such relations with a foreign State, so as to bring the disclosure within the ambit of Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. This exercise will be completed within 21 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Compliance report to this decision should be submitted by the Public Authority to Shri L.C. Singhi, Additional Registrar, Central Information Commission within the aforesaid period and not later than 10.07.2008."
2. The respondent Ministry constituted a Committee consisting of senior Officers to look at the documents in question and to determine which part of the information sought by the appellant is sensitive or is likely to affect adversely India's relations with a foreign State and duly record its reasons as to why disclosure of any part of the information withheld from disclosure would affect such relations with a foreign State so as to bring the disclosure within the ambit of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
13. The three Member Committee constituted by the Ministry of External Affairs concluded that no further documents are to be disclosed in part or full. The Commission was also informed that the report of the Committee has been accepted by the Ministry of External Affairs. Since the report of the Committee was not made available to the Commission, accordingly the respondent Ministry was directed to send a copy of the report on or before 25.09.2008. The report was accordingly submitted in original in a sealed cover and was delivered to the Registry. The report, in original, has been placed before us and we have carefully examined the same on 1.10.'08. On perusal of the report submitted by the Committee so constituted, it appears that they have first asked the concerned Division to segregate the documents in two parts -
(a) Documents that were disclosed to the appellant; and
(b) Documents that were withheld.
The documents withheld as identified by the Committee are:
(1) Notes of the then EAM and RM dated 11.7.2001, (2) Note of then EAM dated 29.6.2002, (3) Opinion of the then Attorney General dated 21.5.2002, (4) Opinion of the then Attorney General dated 10.10.2002, and (5) MEA u.o. No. J/114/25/01 dated 28.8.2001 along with its enclosures.
4. With regard to the two notes of the then EAM and in regard to the MEA note mentioned at Sl. No.(5) above, the Committee has distinctly mentioned that the disclosure of the information would inevitably impact India's relations with a foreign country. It is not for this Commission to examine as to whether the objective assessment of the respondent Ministry is correct or not. It is within the exclusive domain of the Ministry to decide and determine as to whether such disclosure is likely to have any impact on India's relations with a foreign State or not. We may only determine whether the public authority in 2 question has arrived at this conclusion after the exercise of due diligence, which in this case, as may be seen, it now has.
5. In this context it may be mentioned that the appellant has submitted that the then External Affairs Minister has himself agreed to disclose the note submitted by him as External Affairs Minister. But this willingness of the External Affairs Minister has been expressed by him in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the Ministry. The Commission, however, can consider and take into account the objective assessment made by the public authority authorised in this behalf rather than an observation made by an individual notwithstanding however august his stature or his capacity by virtue of office held.
6. Insofar as the disclosure of opinion of the then Attorney General dated 21.5.2002 and 10.10.2002 is concerned, the Commission has noted that the Ministry has already made available notes recorded by the then Foreign Secretary, Shri K. Sibal in which he referred and differed with the conclusions reached by the then Attorney General in these two opinions which have been withheld from disclosure. The Committee constituted by the Ministry has itself conceded that in the normal course, if rebuttal has been disclosed, there should be little reluctance to disclose opinions/notes which have been rebutted. From the observations recorded by the Committee, it appears that the opinion of the then Attorney General depicts a legal analysis of the law of inheritance applicable in case of Khoja Shias. The Committee has not explicitly stated that the disclosure of the opinion would have some impact on India's relations with a foreign country. What has been stated by the Committee in their report is that the disclosure may affect sensitivity of the Government and to the people of Pakistan. This argument is less than convincing so as to bring such disclosure within the ambit of Section 8(1) (a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
7. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a law ensuring transparency in governance and a citizen has the right to know whatever is available with a public 3 authority unless the disclosure of any information either under any of the provisions of the RTI Act or any other Special law is specifically exempted u/s 8 or 9.
8. In our opinion, since there is no definite finding from the Committee that the disclosure of information sought at S. No. 3 &4 in the listing above would lead to an adverse impact on India's relations with a foreign State, the Commission of the opinion that non-disclosure of the same is not justified.
9. The Commission accordingly directs that the opinion of the then Attorney General dated 21.5.2002 and 10.10.2002 be disclosed to the appellant within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The original report of the Committee which was submitted to the Commission in a sealed cover be sent back in a sealed cover and the same will be delivered to the respondent Ministry by the Registry against a proper receipt. Since the report is being returned in original, no copies thereof have been retained in the records.
11. Ordered accordingly. Announced in open chamber this the first day of October 2008.
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) (Dr. O.P. Kejariwal)
Central Information Commissioner Central Information Commissioner
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
4
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.
(L.C. Singhi) Registrar 1.10.'08 5