Central Information Commission
Rohit Sabharwal vs Indian Army on 24 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IARMY/A/2019/109275
In the matter of:
Rohit Sabharwal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
RTI Cell, Addl. DG MT(AE), G-6, D-1, Wing G-6, D-1,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No 04, IHQ Of MoD (Army),
New Delhi-110011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 11/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 21/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 23/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/02/2021 Date of Decision : 23/02/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Adv. Ms. Sukhjinder, representative of the appellant, present over VC Respondent: Lt. Col. Kamal Kapur, CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to the Operation Blue Star (OBS) carried out in 1984 at Sri Harmandir Sahib Complex, Amritsar, Punjab:
1. Provide the total number of the people killed/dead during OBS.
2. Provide the total number of the people injured during OBS.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the information by quoting Sec.8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant submitted that no sensitive details were sought by the appellant in his RTI application and hence the desired information should be disclosed. The appellant in his second appeal memo had also stated that the reply of the CPIO was non-speaking as no valid legal grounds were quoted by him that shows how the sought for information comes under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act and how the same can be denied. He also relied on various high court judgments and CIC orders to substantiate his contention that the CPIO while claiming an exemption is bound to justify the same.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 11.12.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was incomplete in the sense that while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, the CPIO had failed to justify its applicability. It is brought to the notice of the CPIO that as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in any appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of request was justified shall be on the CPIO who had denied the request. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 disclosure of information is the rule and claiming exemption an exception and in order to deny information, exemption under one of the clauses under Section 8 is required to be claimed by the CPIO alongwith full justification for the same.
Having said so, it is however noted that this issue of Blue Star Operation has been already decided by a coordinate bench of this Commission in File No. CIC/IARMY/2017/A/602079 dated 27.03.2018. After perusing the said order where the same subject matter has been extensively examined and discussed, the Commission is in agreement with the stand of the CPIO and the exemption claimed by him. However, for ready reference of the appellant, the relevant para of the order is reproduced below:
"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 2 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..................................
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."
Adverting to the said observation, the CPIO was right in claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, hence no further relief can be given to the appellant.
3However, the concerned CPIO is warned to remain careful while handling the RTI applications in future and to ensure that while claiming an exemption, proper justification is given in every case.
Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4