Central Information Commission
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 6 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/WB/A/2009/0000606
Name of Appellant :Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Name of Respondent :Ministry of Home Affairs
Background
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Appellant, vide RTI application dated 20.3.2009 sought the following information:-
1. Various categories of VIP Security.
2. List of persons covered by different types of security-cover.
3. Total number of persons enjoying VIP security-cover.
4. Criterion to decide security- cover and its category.
5. Average/ approximate cost incurred on each type of security-cover.
6. Is there any provision to recover cost incurred on each type of security-
cover from certain persons?
7. Is security-cover also provided on cost-payment basis?
8. If yes to (6) and/or (7) above, kindly give details
9. Steps taken to prevent misuse of security-cover as status symbol
10. Any other related information
11. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.4.2009 as follows:-
"With regard to your queries in the application, it may be stated that categorized security cover is provided to individuals based on threat assessment made for them by the Central Security agencies in this regard. However as "Law and Order" is a state subject the essential responsibility for providing security to individuals within their territory/jurisdiction is that of the concerned State Government /Union Territory Administration. However as far as Central Govt. is concerned security is not provided to individuals on a payment basis. Further as per Section 8(1) (g) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act-2005 the details sought by you are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act-2005 and cannot be provided to you."
An appeal if any, against this reply may be made within 30 days to Shri Dharmender Sharma, Joint Secretary (PM) & Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, 26, Man Singh Road, Jaisalmer house, New Delhi-110011."
3. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), before whom the Appellant filed first appeal, gave the following reply:-
1. In your Appeal you have basically argued that of the 11 points on which you seek information, except for Point No.2 nothing else is covered in the exemption under Section 8 (i) (g) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as ruled by the CPIO. You have also acknowledged that CPIO provided requisite information with regard to Point No. 6,7 & 8.
2. I have carefully looked into the arguments provided by you for the Appeal and I am unable to disagree with the legal reading of the CPIO of the exemptions provided under Section 8 (i) (g) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The categorization of security of the persons covered and the criteria for determining security are primarily based on inputs obtained from those organizations which have been listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and thus to my mind entail the exemption provided under Section 24(1) to be read with.
4. The disclosure of information of file notings/movements under RTI is also prohibited as notings directly or indirectly rely upon confidential information and assessment. You may, however, note that your petition has been disposed off as per normal channel authorized for disposing such applications.
5. You have changed the nature of your requirement with regard to point no.2 as you now seek the total number rather than names of persons covered by each type of security cover cannot be estimated by this department as categorized security cover is being provided by all State Govts. and UT Administrations as well as Central Govt. Further, in my considered view since the list and the numbers are dynamic and the "sum" total of information which is otherwise clearly exempted provided under Section 8 (1) (g) read with Sec 24 (1) of the RTI also prima facie deserves the exemption provided under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. With regard to Pont No, 9, i.e of taking steps agencies are advised to be is as unobtrusive as feasible to the general public.
4. The matter was heard on 6.1.2010.
5. The Appellant was present.
6. Smt. Vandana Kini, Director/VIP Sec. and Shri S. Suresh Kumar, JS(PM) represented the Respondent.
Decision During the hearing the Respondents submit that the information such as the list of persons covered by different type of Security cover, total number of persons enjoying security cover, approximate cost incurred on each type of security covers may not be feasible to provide in view of Section 8(1)(g) and Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, as it may expose the strength of security cover. The Respondent further clarified that Categorized Security Cover is being provided by all State Governments and Union Territory Administration, as well as by the Central Government. After considering the explanation and submissions of the Respondents, the Appellant submits that he may be provided information only regarding the categorization of VIP Security. He does not press for the information on other points of his RTI Application.
After hearing the Parties and on perusal of the documents, the Commission directs as follows:- With regard to information on point no. 1, the Respondent have stated that categorized Security cover is provided to individuals based on threat assessment made for them by, and inputs obtained from, the Central Security Agencies in this regard. However, the Commission finds that since the question is only about categorization of VIP Security, Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not attracted. The Respondents are directed to make this information insofar as it concerns them, available to the Appellant. However, information regarding exempted organizations under section 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005, need not be disclosed.
The matter is disposed of as per the above directions / observations.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 6.01.2010 Case No. CIC/WB/A/2009/0000606 Authenticated true copy:
(P.C. Purkait) S.O. & Asst. Registrar Copy to:
1. Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 1775, Kucha Lattushah Dariba Delhi-110006
2. Smt. Vandana Kini Director (CPIO) Govt. of India M/o Home Affairs (PM Division) Jaisalmer House, 26 Man Singh Road New Delhi
3. Sh. Dharmendra Sharma Jt. Secretary (PM)-cum-AA Govt. of India M/o Home Affairs (PM Division) Jaisalmer House, 26 Man Singh Road New Delhi