Central Information Commission
Navdeep Gupta vs Army Hq on 3 April, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/602079/SD
Date of Hearing: 27/12/2017
Date of Decision: 27/03/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Navdeep Gupta
Respondent : CPIO,
RTI Cell, Addl DG MT(AE),
G - 6, D - 1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011.
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2016
PIO replied on : 04/11/2016 & 22/11/2016
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2016
First Appellate Authority : 16/01/2017
order
Second Appeal dated : 01/03/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copy of memo/register page or in the form such record exists which proves that dak register pertaining to the year 1984 has been weeded out as informed to him in an earlier Second Appeal; and he sought inspection of all files related to operation "Blue Star" conducted by Indian Army on 03.06.1984 to 06.06.1984 and certified copies of documents identified thereof.1
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Brig. Devesh Gaur, CPIO and Lt. Col R.N. Sharma, GSO 1(Legal), IHQ of MOD(Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi present in person.
CPIO stated that the RTI Application was originally filed with CPIO, PMO, however the same was received in his office upon transfer under 6(3) of the RTI Act for information sought on para (2) of the RTI Application. That, the same has been denied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as disclosure of information entails sensitive issues of national security and intelligence related records.
Appellant stated that he desired the information from PMO itself as there is no point of asking for this information from Army, he also insisted on the retention schedule followed by PMO for weeding out dak register pertaining to the year 1984. Appellant further stated that the Home Ministry has given some unnerving information that only 36 bodies were recovered from the Golden Temple and he is trying to explore the aspects of the political murder and is of the strong opinion that disclosure of information at this belated stage in no way prejudicially affects the security or strategic interests of the State or would lead to incitement of an offence unless Indian Army has done any injustice which it believes will incite an offence.
CPIO submitted that the question of belated stage does not arise as the records are yet not declassified by the Government therefore its disclosure will be prejudicial to national interests.
Based on the submission of both parties, question arose as to whether passing of more than 30 years since the occurrence will have any bearing on national security at this stage. Accordingly, Commission directed the CPIO to send their detailed written submissions to justify the applicability of Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act. Appeal was reserved for decision.2
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/602079/SD CPIO's written submission:
Commission received the written submissions of the CPIO dated 03.01.2018 wherein it has been stated that Operation Blue Star was conducted in the year 1984 in Punjab & Union Territory of Chandigarh as a result of the prevailing security situation and it is only records of its operational details that is held with the concerned agency of IHQ of MoD (Army) and these continue to remain classified. Further it has been stated that disclosure of these records will have severe implication for the integrity of the State in as much as the operation was launched essentially to safeguard the integrity of the nation from separatist elements. The subversive elements related to the separatist movement in the affected areas still remain active in India & abroad. That, it also means that disclosure of this information at any point in today's time will invariably enable anti-national elements & external agencies to rejuvenate separatist designs while drawing inspiration in the name of the terrorists who were killed during the operation.
Then, there is scope of misinterpretation, speculation by vested interest groups which in turn may lead to violence and resultant unrest will lead to deterioration of law and order situation impacting the security of the nation at large. Besides, in the current scenario of social media proliferation, manipulation of details regarding the said operation on electronic platform by vested interest groups would be instantaneous before any preventive measures are taken by Government. Moreover, disclosing the details as sought may lead to selective targeting of security forces who were involved in the Operation. For instance, CPIO submits that even after 28 years, Lt. Gen K S Brar (Retd.) who is Z Plus security category was assaulted in Oct. 2012, not just in India but also in London only because the officer was involved in the conduct of Operation Blue Star and it was known in public domain.
Similarly, Gen AS Vaidya, the then COAS was assassinated after the conduct of said operation in the year 1986. Therefore, CPIO contends that disclosure of information will potentially lead to a number of criminal offences either against a particular community or against individual citizens of India who were merely discharging their duties. It is for such reasons and other security concerns that Government has perhaps consciously not declassified the details related to the operation.3
Observations Commission has taken into consideration the aforesaid contentions of the CPIO and completely concedes with the view that disclosure of information will be primarily prejudicial to internal security of the nation and can be a potential cause for incitement of offences of varied nature.
Per contra, the Appellant's arguments against the denial of information appear to be devoid of any merit in as much as by relying on the proposition that CPIO's belief that incitement of offence is pertinent only if Army believes it has done injustice is in itself a glaring instance of speculation on his part.
Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the arguments of the CPIO for denying the information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in as much as the subject matter of the information sought pertains to an Operation of Indian Army which purportedly led to such a communal paraphernalia that later assumed cataclysmic proportions, stretching beyond the time period of its being.
Disclosure of the relevant records is not prudent at a time when the nation is rife with instances of invariable intolerance amongst communities.
Even further, the international dimension of the operation has been such that even as on date United Kingdom's alleged role in the same is under the scanner. As gathered, a Freedom of Information Appeal reportedly seeking declassification of files containing information on Britain's involvement in the operation is being heard by a tribunal in the context of withholding of documents related to the subject by UK Cabinet office. The said decision was later upheld by the UK Information Commission as UK authorities cited prejudice to international relations with India due to the political sensitivity of the subject as their reason for non-disclosure.
Decision In the considered opinion of this bench, the denial of information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is therefore appropriate in view of the foregoing observations. It is also immaterial that Appellant intended this information to be disclosed by the Prime Minister's office rather than the Indian Army, the fact that PMO transferred the RTI Application to the Respondent office suggests as to which of these is deemed as the holder of information sought by the Appellant. Notwithstanding, the exemption of Section 8(1)(a) is applicable 4 File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/602079/SD even in the case any part of these records was held by PMO or any other public authority for that matter.
However, as regards para 1 of the RTI Application, Commission directs the CPIO, PMO to provide available and relevant information to the Appellant since as per transfer note no. RTI/8290/2016-PMR dated 22.09.2016 of Ambuj Sharma, Under Secretary & CPIO, Appellant was informed that on point 1 of RTI Application, information, if any, will be provided in due course. In the event, no information is available on record the same shall be categorically informed to the Appellant. CPIO, PMO is also directed to send a compliance report to the Commission including his explanation for not having provided the information on point 1 within the stipulated time-frame. If in case, information was already provided, same shall also be substantiated by the CPIO in the compliance report. A copy of Second Appeal including the aforesaid transfer note of PMO is enclosed herewith for reference.
Commission's directions on para 1 of the RTI Application should be complied with by CPIO, PMO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Copy to:
CPIO Prime Minister's Office South Block, New Delhi-110011
--(For timely compliance of directions as above) Encl: Copy of Second Appeal 5