Central Information Commission
Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 26 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/112078/MOEAF
Dr. Subramanian Swamy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Ministry of External Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs
3. PIO, Ministry of Defence
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2024
Date of Decision : 22.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.11.2022
PIO replied on : 21.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2023
First Appellate Order on : 03.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.11.2022 before the PIO, MHA seeking information on the following points:-
"1. What extent of the Sovereign Land of the Republic of India has been acquired by the People's Republic of China, across the 1996 mutually agreed upon Line of Actual Control? Kindly provide a map of the same, showing the exact ground portion, as of November 2022.
2. What extent of India's Sovereign land has been ceded to China due to the further creation of buffer zones or "no man's land", across the mutually agreed upon Line of Actual Control of 1996? Kindly provide a map of the same.
3. What extent of India's sovereign land has been ceded to the People's Republic of China since 2014? Kindly provide a map for the same, each year wise.
4. What extent of India's Sovereign land has been lost due to the further creation of buffer zones or "no man's land" since 2014? Kindly provide a map of the same.
5. Under what agreement or otherwise India had ceded the Aksai Chin region to China? If so, kindly provide documentation of the same, including the area ceded.
6. How many times, and on what dates has there been Chinese military illegal incursions over Indian Territory across the mutually agreed upon Line of Actual Control between the countries since 1996? Kindly provide details of the same.
7. How many people have been displaced in India due to the creation of buffer zones or no man's land, or ceding of India's territory, since the drawing of the mutually agreed Page 1 of 3 upon Line of Actual Control between the countries since 1996? Kindly provide details of the same."
The CPIO, MHA transferred the matter to the Commandant, Border Management-I vide letter dated 18.11.2022 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act under intimation to the Appellant, wherefrom the matter was further transferred to PIO, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 07.12.2022. The PIO, Ministry of Defence, Dept. of Military Affairs vide letter dated 21.12.2022 transferred the RTI Application to CPIO, Army HQ and further to CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 29.12.2022.
On not receiving any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2023 before the MHA. The FAA, MHA vide order dated 03.03.2023 held as under:-
"4.Whereas, it is found that the information is not available with MoD as well as Army HQ, as stated in Para 2 & 3 above. Your RTI application No. DMAND/R/T/22/03796 dated 16/12/2022 on which you have filed first appeal is transferred under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to MEA, RTI Cell for providing the information available with them on the RTI application.
5. Whereas, it is found that no further action is pending with CPIO, DMA and accordingly the first appeal is disposed off."
A reply dated 05.04.2023 from the MEA, DS(China) is found on record, which reveals that the following information was disclosed:
2. It may be noted that under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, a CPIO/Public Authority is under obligation to provide an applicant only that information which exists in the records and which is held by or under the control of that authority. Information regarding your query such as is available with the undersigned CPIO is being shared herewith.
3. With respect to points 1,2,3,4,5 and 7, statements of the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri in Parliament on 15 September 2020 and 11 September 2021, as well as official press releases dated 06 August 2021 and 09 September 2022 are attached for your reference.
4. With respect to point 6, it may be noted that this issue has been responded to in Parliament previously. A copy of an answer to a Parliament question on the topic is attached for reference.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 04.03.2024 reiterating the above facts.
Written submission dated 04.03.2024 has been received from the Appellant stating that he had received no effective response. The Appellant further contended that the information sought is not barred from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and even if the information sought falls within any of the exceptions, the PIO was obliged to furnish a clear rationale for rejection as per Section 7(8)(i) of the Act. He averred that information had been denied to him in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 3
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 04.03.2024 reiterating the above facts placing reliance on the response sent on 05.04.2023 and adding that no First Appeal was received by MEA.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Advocates Shri Vishesh Kanodia and Shri Vaidushya Parth Respondent: Shri Parimal Bharti - Director, MHA; Ms. P Sohoni - Dy. Secretary & CPIO, MEA and Shri Suresh Kumar - US, MM-I, MHA were present during the hearing.
During the course of hearing, the Appellant reiterated his contentions from the written submission dated 04.03.2024 stating that though his RTI application had been repeatedly transferred, he had received no information at all from the Respondents so far. The Respondent from MEA maintained that the RTI application had been received by the MEA on 10.03.2023 and she had furnished information held in the official records, vide reply dated 05.04.2023. A copy of the reply dated 05.04.2023 was provided once again to the Appellant during the course of hearing. However, he expressed dissatisfaction with the response given by the CPIO, MEA.
Decision:
Upon hearing averments of the contesting parties and after perusal of records of the case, the Respondent - PIO, MEA is hereby directed to revisit the RTI Application and furnish a point wise revised reply to the queries raised by the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard within one week thereafter.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)