Central Information Commission
Mrkodur Venkatesh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 30 October, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001982/SB
Dated 30.10.2015
Appellant: Dr. Kodur Venkatesh,
6, D, Main, East End
9th Block, Jayanagar
Bangalore560069
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
D.G. Border Security Force
(Personnel Directorate), Block No. 10
5th Floor, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi110003
Date of Hearing: 30.10.2015
ORDER
1. Dr. Kodur Venkatesh filed an application dated 16.12.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), D.G. Border Security Force (BSF) seeking the following information (i) names of officers and men belonging to 132 BN, BSF who were awarded Gallantry Medals from 1990 onwards, (ii) instances/ action of gallantry/ encounters and such other reasons for awarding the Gallantry Medals to officers and men of 132 BN, BSF, and whether Shri Dilbagh Singh Assistant Commandant 132 BN, BSF and Subedar Shri Surrender Singh Negi were awarded a Gallantry Medal for their participation in the encounter with militants at Kupwara.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2013 informed the appellant that Border Security Force is an exempted organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.12.2013 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Copy of the FAA's order is not enclosed. Aggrieved by the action of the FAA the appellant filed Second Appeal before the Commission on 17.06.2014.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Dr. Kodur Venkatesh attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Ajmal Singh, CPIO and DIG, BSF was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 16.12.2013. The appellant, however, admitted that he had received the reply of the CPIO dated 24.12.2013. Whereby, he was informed that BSF is exempted from the provision of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that BSF has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this information sought cannot be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission is aware that under Section 24(1) r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the BSF except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian vs Adarsh Sharma) had held that: "5. .......if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be welladvised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act........................................ It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not........."
7. In view of the above, the Commission would like the BSF to consider the request of the appellant and provide information to the extent possible to the appellant.
8. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer