Central Information Commission
Jagdeep Singh Minhas vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 28 January, 2022
CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736
In the matter of:
Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd.) ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
Date of Impugned Order : 14.10.2021
Adjunct Decision dated : 27.01.2022
ORDER
Facts:
The above-mentioned Complaint of the Complainant, Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd.) was disposed off by the Commission on 14.10.2021 with the following decision:
"Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that exemption has been claimed u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the CPIO without any clear justification or reasons which is against Section 7 (8) (i) of the Act. The plea of the Respondent regarding the ongoing Page 1 of 7 CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also bears no relevance to the facts of the instant case since the RTI Act does not provide for any exemption u/s 8 as per which information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. Since, this is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be allowed, the Commission directs Shri Ved Prakash, CPIO and Dy. Director, BCAS to show cause and submit an explanation to the Commission stating the reasons/ justifications for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 by 30.11.2021.
With the above direction, the instant Complaint stands disposed off accordingly."
In response to the aforesaid impugned order, Shri M. Nowshad, CPIO and Joint Director (Tech), BCAS HQ, Janpath Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter dated 10.12.2021 has apprised the Commission as under:
"Subject: Reply by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to the Show Cause Notice bearing No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640836.
Hon'ble Sir, This is with reference to Show Cause Notice issued by the office of the Central Information Commission to the office of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (herein after referred as 'Respondent') in respect of Complaint filed by Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd.) (herein after referred as 'Complainant') vide Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 (herein after referred as 'Compliant").
The Respondent in this matter most respectfully submits as under:
Bureau of Civil Aviation of Security i.e. the Respondent is a regulatory body responsible for regulation, implementation and enforcement of civil aviation security at the civil airports in India. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security allows only authorized persons to access airside for bonafide purpose to visit inside the airport so that their presence inside the airport are not detrimental to the aviation security. In practice, employer forwards duly filled-in signed application to the regional office of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security along with requisite testified documents and recommendation to enable the Regional Office of BCAS to issue Aerodrome Entry Permit (AEP) in favour of the employee subject to required verifications and due approval by the AEP Committee. It is the responsibility of the employer company to verify the documents as furnished by the employee and forwards to the same to the BCAS after establishing it's credentials. Apart from that the Respondent is also mandated to look into the existing security concerns Page 2 of 7 CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 and formulate requisite regulations to keep the Indian aviation security updated in tune with technological developments.
Brief background of the matter resulting the RTI Application The present Complaint emanates from the disputes between employer and employee. The employee i.e. the Complainant had some issues with his employer and also with one of the higher functionaries of employer company. Later the confrontation eventually led to his termination. The Respondent does not have any role or any influence in the deciding the terms and conditions of employment of the complainant in this matter. Respondent hereby affirms that his office has no control over the employment and terms and condition of services of the Complainant as Respondent is not privy to any of the contractual obligation arising from employee-employer professional relations. A security violation/procedural lapse committed by the complainant was also reported by the employer company to the Respondent. In this incident, an inquiry was conducted wherein all evidences were adduced and statements of all concerns were recorded.
Later the complainant moved before hon'ble Delhi High Court about his alleged removal from his employment and sought compensation. While the matter was still pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the complainant also filed this complaint before the Hon'ble CIC.
The complainant in his application under RTI sought set of documents and information about the inquiry conducted by regional office of the Respondent at Guwahati including the copy of inquiry report. The requested information were denied by the Respondent's head Office under Section 8 (1) a under the RTI Act. The Respondent sincerely affirms and has stern belief that the information sought by the Complainant are related to Aviation Security and this information cannot be shared or disseminated with the public at large in backdrop of surcharges security scenario.
Hearing in this matter was conducted by Hon'ble CIC on 13.10.2021 which was attended by Mr. Ved Pal Malik, Deputy Director and Mr. R K Bhardwaj, SASO from the regional office, Delhi and both have apprised the Hon'ble CIC about this matter.
Response by BCAS on the issue of Exemption under section 8(1)(a) a. After going into the details pertaining to the information sought by the Complainant, the office of the Respondent has decided against to furnish the requested information considering the fundamental proposition of Page 3 of 7 CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 equity and good conscious and taking into account of nuances of aviation security. As we all aware, in the backdrop of current surcharged security concerns looming large in the world, the aviation security is the most sensitive issue and the same cannot be compromised with under any circumstances. Therefore, any information relates to aviation security has only to be shared amongst stakeholder strictly on need to know basis for bonafide reasons. In these circumstances, all the issues related to this RTI application have been considered and the decision was taken to the best of ability without prejudice to interest of any individual. b. The Information sought by the Complainant were about the inquiry report and it's documents wherein aviation security procedures, lapses and the proposed remedial actions were discussed. The report are confidential in nature and if it is shared with public at large, it may lead to imperil aviation security. It is within realm of the right of the Complainant to know the specifics of inquiry report and related documents however the same can be restrained wherein right of safety of each countrymen is involved. The Respondent office is of the sincere view that aviation security cannot be compromised with and the information of this nature cannot be dissemination as the same are strictly confidential in nature. Respondent takes note of this issue deriving cue from the current fragile security scenario in the immediate neighbourhood and the series of incidents which have taken place in the recent past. Therefore, in order to enforce and regulate the aviation security, it is imperative to keep the regulatory function confidential and only to be shared with the stakeholder with a caveat that it is not detrimental to aviation security. c. As explained above, there is some information, which relates to India's national aviation security, could genuinely cause harm if it is released to the public. The inquiry in this matter not only encompasses the issues of aviation security Orders, Circulars and Guidelines which are discussed but also the proposed remedial actions and recommendations are also been discussed which are purely subject matter for the consumption of the Respondent. All issues and the documents used in the inquiry cannot be shared to make the same public so that non stakeholder lay hand on the same to jeopardize aviation security. It is pertinent to outline one of the decided matters vide W.P.(C) No. 11202/2015 & CM No. 29152/2015 named M/S Add Lounge Services Private Limited, Hon'ble High Court has contemplated that .... " Airport security since September, 11 2001 incident, leading to the fall of World Trade Center in New York, has acquired a different meaning. The same has taught humanity that aircrafts can be used as weapons of destruction not only of those traveling therein but also of others i.e. mass destruction of those to whom they may be diverted."Page 4 of 7
CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 There has been paradigm shift in aviation security wherein all countries vulnerable to such kind of security violations have to strictly follow international security rules as envisaged by ICAO. All rules/guidelines/circulars are formulated and implemented in the backdrop of current security scenario to keep itself abreast with the international understanding amongst contracting nations.
d. It may be noted that India is signatory of international conventions and the Respondent has obligation to follow commonly accepted international norms. The ICAO Aviation Security Manual (Doc 8973 - Restricted) assists member states in implementing Annex-7 to the Chicago Convention by providing guidance on how to apply its Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Annex 17 and Doc 8973 are constantly being reviewed and amended in light of new threats and technological developments that have a bearing on the effectiveness of measures designed to prevent acts of unlawful interference.
Legal position regarding exemption under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act It is relevant to mention that under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act wherein it is envisaged that a public authority is not under obligation to furnish the information disclosure of which would prejudicial affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.
It is humbly submitted that the Public authority is not under obligation to disclose the information that may have prejudicial affect on sovereignty and integrity of India. The definition of security is definitely broad and includes political, economic, environmental, social and human among other strands that impact the concept of security. In this way the aviation security definitely comes under the purview of exempted list of information. Hence the Respondent earnestly believes that the requested information is prejudicial affect on aviation security.
Obligation on the Public Authority to preserve the confidentiality The Public Authority is not only obliged to provide information as mandated under the law but it also has obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the sensitive information. The Respondent is of the view that the right enshrined under the RTI Act is not an unfettered Right wherein an applicant can seek sensitive security information. The Act mandates to provide information to the applicant but on the same hand the legislation also provides exemption clauses. In the present matter, the Respondent has taken the decision under the provisions of the section Page 5 of 7 CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 8(1)a with a view that the information contains sensitive information which impedes aviation security, the restrains must be exercised while providing the same.
No plausible infringement of any legal right of the Complainant if 'information' is denied It is relevant to mention that in this matter no other legal right enshrined under any other law to the Complainant has been infringed as a consequence of denial of the information sought. In this matter there is no infringement of any right of an individual post denial of this information which the Complainant could have invoked after getting the information in question. It is relevant to mention that the complainant has filed a case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court for redressal and compensation after removal from his employment and the same is pending for adjudication.
Prayer Therefore, in view of the above mentioned submissions before the Hon'ble Commission it is most humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Commission:
a. to appreciate and the above mentioned reasons/justifications for exemption u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI and dispose the complaint in favour of Respondent;
submitted please,"
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid written submission of the Respondent, the Commission is satisfied with the reasons provided by the Respondent for denying information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Further, the Commission observes that the present Complaint originates from various disputes between the employer and employee and that the Complainant is accordingly advised to redress his concerns/issues/grievances before a competent forum and not through the provisions of the RTI Act.Page 6 of 7
CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Show Cause proceedings are hereby dropped.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 27.01.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer Dy. Director Security (BCAS), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, A-Wing, I, II, III Floor, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd.) Page 7 of 7