Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 23 July, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000606
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23 July 2012
Date of decision : 23 July 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal,
1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110 006.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prime Minister's Office,
South Block,
New Delhi - 110 101.
CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs,
Infrastructure Section, 241E,
North Block, New Delhi.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri S.P. Roy, US, Cabinet Secretariat,
(ii) Shri N.K. Singh, CPIO, DoT,
(iii) Shri S. Venkat,
(iv) Smt. Priya Mahadevan, US (A), DoPT,
(v) Shri D.C. Sharma, SO,
(vi) Smt. Sanjukta Ray, Director, PMO,
(vii) Shri Sanjeev Gupta, CAPIO, PMO,
(viii) Shri Subhendu Hota, CAPIO, PMO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
All the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.
2. The Appellant had sought a number of information relating to the 2G scam and more specifically to the letter written by the then Finance Minister to the Prime Minister on some aspect of this scam. The CPIO had responded to 2 CIC/SM/A/2011/000606 of his queries and had transferred the remaining 2 to the Finance Ministry. Both the CPIOs had observed that the desired information could not be disclosed since the entire matter including all the records had been already placed before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and that no information in this regard could be disclosed before the report of the JPC was tabled in the house. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this decision.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that it was not right that all such information should be withheld from the public on the only plea that the matter was before one or the other Parliamentary standing committee. In his opinion, the information sought by him is of larger public interest and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of section 8(2) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, should be placed in the public domain. On the other hand, the Respondents produced a communication from the Secretariat of the JPC which very clearly prohibited the public authority concerned disclosing any information which it had already furnished to the JPC.
4. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the desired information cannot indeed be disclosed at this stage as the relevant documents are before the JPC. In view of the express prohibition imposed by the JPC on disclosure of these documents, the disclosure by the CPIO would lead to breach of parliamentary privilege. Subsection 1(c) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly exempts such information from disclosure. However, it is worthwhile to note that in matters such as this which has been agitating the public mind for quite a long time now, all the procedural formalities should be completed at the earliest so that the full disclosure of the relevant information can be made.
5. In the meanwhile, at least the communication from the JPC prohibiting CIC/SM/A/2011/000606 the disclosure of the desired information should be supplied to the Appellant. We direct the CPIO of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order a photocopy of the relevant communication received from the JPC Secretariat.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/000606