Central Information Commission
Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi vs Director (Judicial), Ministry Of Home ... on 31 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00518 dated 22-3-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi
Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
ORDER
In our decision of 16-5-08 we had held as follows:
In the instant case, the then Minister (Home) has refused to disclose information in Parliament on the ground that the information happens to be a private one. What has been refused to be disclosed in Parliament, if made public at this stage, may be considered to be a breach of privilege.
Of course, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction and would not choose to pass a verdict as to whether it will actually amount to either breach of privilege or contempt of the Parliament because it is for the Parliament to decide and determine that. The Commission can only see and examine whether the concerned Public Authority denying the information has a prime facie apprehension as to whether disclosure of information in the given case may amount to commission of contempt or breach of privilege and if a prime facie case is so made out, the Commission has to uphold the same.
Parliament may, however, examine the matter in the light of the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the objectives that this legislation intends to achieve of bringing transparency and accountability in the working of all public authorities. In this case, the Commission would like to make a reference, and to request the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Shri Somnath Chatterjee to consider the issue and decide as to whether it would be a breach of privilege if the information, which has been refused to be disclosed to Parliament by the Executive at one point of time, is now disclosed to an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Needless to say, if eventually an order of disclosure of information is issued after the matter of Parliamentary privilege is decided by the Hon'ble Speaker, because it cannot be denied that the information sought is with regard to a private property, hence before disclosing any information on record in this regard CPIO will still be required to give a written notice to the third party i.e. the erstwhile Maharaja of Udaipur, of the request and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and on 1 this basis take a decision on the disclosure of information keeping in view that should the third party claim invasion of privacy u/s 8(1)(j), the CPIO will have to take a considered decision after keeping in view such objection, considering that there is a public activity involved in this matter i.e. the accession of the State to the Indian Union and also to the fact that more than twenty years have expired since such accession.
The appellant has indeed contended that the information being more than 20 years old must be disclosed under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub- section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act From the above, it is clear that the provisions of Section 8(3) are subject to the provisions of Section 8(1) (c) and, as such, even if the information relates to an incident or event which has taken place, occurred or happened 20 years before, still if it is decided that the disclosure amounts to the breach of privilege of Parliament, it cannot be disclosed."
Accordingly, we have received the following remarks from Dy. Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Privilege & Ethics Branch dated 17-7-08 in which he has submitted as follows:
"It has been observed that as per the communication of Director, Judicial and CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 31st October 2007 addressed to the applicant, Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi, "Saheliyon-Ki-Bari", the property regarding which information has been sought by the applicant, is a State Property. The information south through USQ No. 655 in 1967 pertained to private properties that remained with rulers at the time of accession. The principle (that details of ... private property of the ruler should not be matter of public disclosure) on which information was denied to Parliament, in reply to USQ 655 does not, therefore, appear to be applicable to Saheliyon-Ki-Bari which, as per the admission of the Government is a State Property. It seems to be debatable whether provisions of 2 Section 8(1) (c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 may be invoked under these circumstances.
Further the applicant, who desires this information in connection with a case pending in a court has, in this application dated 9th March 2007 to the CIC, categorically stated that if it is not possible for the Government to disclose the information to him, it may be made available directly to the court in which his case is pending.
In the event of the Government acceding to the said request made by the applicant vide his letter dated 9th March, 2007, there would be no "public disclosure".
This has the approval of Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha."
From the above it is clear that the disclosure of information sought in the present application will not, in the view of Speaker, Lok Sabha, breach the exemption from disclosure granted u/s 8 (1) (c) CPIO Shri NN Perumal Director MHA will now provide the information sought by appellant Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi will now be disclosed to him within 20 days of the date of receipt of this decision notice, allowing for 5 days for issue of notice to the third party and a further 10 days for the third party to respond.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Announced in open chamber on st 31 July, 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 31-7-2008 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 31-7-2008 3