Central Information Commission
Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 30 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/MHOME/C/2017/176001
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2018
Date of Decision : 22.10.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Respondent : CPIO/O/o the Shri N.N. Vohra,
Chairperson-N.N. Vohra Committee
on Criminalization of Politics
Through: None
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.09.2012
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.11.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 11.09.2012, the complainant sought information regarding NN Vohra Committee set up in July 1993 to check criminalisation of politics. He sought following information:-
1. Copy of complete report of NN Vohra Committee with all its annexures etc. together with copies of all documents/file-notings/correspondence etc. on preparing the said report.
2. Copy of notification/order etc. to constitute NN Vohra Committee together with terms of reference.
3. Number of copies of report of NN Vohra Committee prepared mentioning names of persons/authorities etc. to whom copies of reports given along with copies of their acknowledge receipts.
4. Have copies of NN Vohra Committee reports been also given along with annexures etc. to some persons/authorities etc.?
5. Has the NN Vohra Committee report and its annexures been put on some government-website, or else the report has been made public otherwise? Etc...Page 1 of 6
Having not received any response with CPIO, the complaint filed a complaint to the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
1. The Complainant alone has appeared during the hearing, while the Respondent is absent despite service of notice of hearing. The applicant states that the purpose of filing the instant case is to obtain the annexures accompanying the NN Vohra Committee Report. The Respondent viz.
Director-MHA vide reply dated 27.06.2012 (in response to another RTI application dated 10.05.2012) informed that "...a copy of Vohra Committee Report has been supplied by the then CPIO vide letter of even number dated 4th November 2011. It is also stated that there is no annexure in Vohra Committee Report."
Decision:
2. Before embarking on deciding the case on merits, it is essential to deal with the background of the case which deals with a certain N N Vohra Committee Report. This report was submitted by the former Union Home Secretary of India, Mr. N N Vohra on October 1993. The report studied the problem of the criminalisation of politics and of the nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India. The report contained several observations made by official agencies on the criminal network which was virtually attempting to run a parallel government. It also discussed criminal gangs who enjoyed the patronage of politicians, political parties and the protection of some government functionaries.
Over the years, among those elected to local bodies, State Assemblies and even to the Parliament, a number of them carried criminal record. The unpublished annexures to the Vohra Report were believed to contain highly controversial material in this regard.
Page 2 of 63. The Report of the Vohra Committee, authored by its Chairman Sh. N N Vohra, was submitted on 5.10.1993 and also contained a compilation of the responses of its different members, including Secretary, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW); Director, CBI; Director, IB, and the views of the Secretary (Revenue). In the main report, these were analysed and commented upon stating that the growth and spread of crime syndicates in Indian society has been pernicious. The Report further observed that these criminal elements had developed an extensive network of contacts with bureaucrats, government functionaries at lower levels, politicians, media personalities, strategically located persons in the non-governmental sector and members of the judiciary. Some of these criminal syndicates had international links, sometimes with foreign intelligence agencies. The Report recommended that an efficient nodal cell be set up with powers to take stringent action against crime syndicates, while ensuring that it would be immune from being exploited or influenced. However, no follow- up action on the findings of the Vohra Committee Report seems to have been initiated over the two years which immediately followed its submission. The Report of the Vohra Committee was tabled in Parliament on 1-8-1995, where upon it became the subject of a prolonged, intense debate.
4. Under the circumstances, Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P (Rajya Sabha), who actively participated in the debates in Parliament made a written representation to the erstwhile Minister for Home Affairs on 16-8-1995 demanding that the Union Government make public the reports which were the basis for the Vohra Committee Report, and that the names of individuals who would become identifiable as a result of studying the various background papers, be released. He also alleged that the Union Government was trying to suppress these background reports and, without them, the Vohra Committee Report was "meaningless".
Page 3 of 6Unsuccessful in securing a satisfactory response to his representation, Shri Dinesh Trivedi, in conjunction with the Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC) and the Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC), both of them non-governmental organisations, filed a writ petition in public interest being Writ Petition WP (Civil) No. 664 of 1995 before the Supreme Court of India. The Union of India, the Ministry of Finance, the Director, RAW, the Director, CBI, the Director, IB, and the Special Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs were arrayed as the Respondents in the said Writ Petition.
5. In 1997, the Supreme Court decided the Writ Petition (Civil) no. 664/1995 by decision dated 20.03.1997, titled Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. v. Union of India [(1997) 4 SCC 306] dealing inter alia with the petitioners' right to freedom of information holding that:
"...16. In modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognised limitations; it is, by no means, absolute.
However, after analysis of the facts of the case, in details, the Apex Court decided as follows:
"....22. It is, therefore, evident that Shri N.N Vohra had himself drafted and signed the Report in the belief that it would be read by a select few high-ranking officials who would then take necessary action. It is doubtful whether the candour exhibited and the liberal mentioning of intelligence reports would have been forthcoming if he had not felt assured of complete confidentiality. Indeed, much of the information contained in the Report, which has now become publicly available, might well have adversely affected the various intelligence agencies involved.
23. We are reluctant to direct the disclosure of the supporting material which consists of information Page 4 of 6 gathered from the heads of the various intelligence agencies to the general public. To so direct would cause great harm to the agencies involved and to the conditions of assured secrecy and confidentiality under which they function. Furthermore, it must be noted that not all of the information collected and recorded in intelligence reports is substantiated by hard evidence. Often on the basis of unverified suspicion names are thrown by people to save their own skins. Intelligence agents are not obliged to adhere to the principles of natural justice before they compile reports of possible suspects; quite frequently, individuals are shortlisted based purely on the investigators' hunches and surmises or on account of the past background of the suspects. The disclosure of these reports would lead to a situation where public servants and elected representatives who, though entirely innocent, are compelled by virtue of their offices to associate with individuals whose culpability is beyond doubt, will also find themselves mired in suspicion. Such a situation would, in the long run, prove to be disastrous for the effective functioning of Government. This is because it would make every governmental functionary over- cautious about taking the simplest of decisions.
.......................................................
25. Alternatively, such full-scale disclosures would undoubtedly act to the advantage of those individuals who are actually the central figures in the nexus mentioned in the Report. Warned in advance of their complicity being suspected, they would initiate rearguard measures to exonerate themselves.
26. We are, therefore, of the view that the disclosure of the supporting material placed before the Vohra Committee to the public at large would, instead of aiding the interest of the public, be severely and detrimentally injurious to it. ..." .
6. The Supreme Court concluded with the decision of recommending appointment of a high level committee to ensure in-depth investigation into the findings of the N N Vohra Committee and to secure prosecution of those involved.
This being the settled legal position, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with it. The Supreme Court has spelled out the reasons why the annexures to the report cannot be given since these are reports of the intelligence and other security agencies based on their internal Page 5 of 6 assessment and the purpose was not to divulge it to the public but only to a select few in the top echelons of the Govt. for taking necessary action in national interest. The request, therefore, in the RTI application dated 11.09.2012 cannot be acceded to, in view of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court of India.
Before parting with the above discussion, however, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention that the response of the Respondent denying that there was no annexure in the Vohra Committee Report is strange and unacceptable. The Supreme Court had Commented upon the report and annexure after having seen them from submissions by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Hence, dealt appropriately at the level of the Respondent citing the Supreme Court decision and rationale behind non disclosure, the Respondent could have spared itself this roundabout process of denial of information, bordering on misrepresentation of facts. The Commission expects the Respondent to act more with diligence and refrain from repeating such conduct in future.
The instant case is disposed of as such.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 6 of 6