Central Information Commission
Mr.T S Shergill vs Intelligence Bureau on 22 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000479 dated 8-4-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri T. S. Shergill
Respondent: Intelligence Bureau (IB)
Decision announced 22.07.'10
FACTS
By an application of 22.9.2008 Shri T.S. Shergill, DCIO (Retd.) of Chandigarh applied to the Director, Intelligence Bureau seeking the following information:
"I am still aggrieved of the decision on the issue of my promotion, conveyed to me by the Intelligence Bureau from time to time, as these were all along deliberately aimed at the denial of justice to me resulting in the violation of human rights. There cannot be a more glaring example of the violation and wilful crushing of human rights than in this case of promotion.' This was in reference to an earlier e-mail of 3.9.2008 addressed to Ms. Inderjeet Kaur, Director (Police), North Block in which Shri S. K. Shergill had sought the following: -
"It is requested that the Intelligence Bureau may be asked to provide me the following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 at the earliest: -
1. Number of vacancies available, at the material time, when I was considered for promotion to the rank of aCIO-1 (G) and how many candidates were considered along with me in the DPC held in 1983.
2. The extracts for the prevailing rule position at the relevant time and at what stage these rules were superseded by the new rules, whereby, only seniority was made the criteria for promotion, may kindly be provided to me along with the following details pertaining to my promotion case: -
(a) The number of vacancies vis-à-vis the candidates considered along with me.
(b) The extracts of rules existing at that time and the revised rules, aforesaid.
(c) Details of the DPC's held year wise after my first consideration for promotion in year 1983 till I was promoted as ACIO-1 (G) in year 1989.
(d) The photocopies of my Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), for the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 i.e. the years in which the DPC's held by my department duly considered me for 1 promotion but did not approve me for promotion and also for the year 1989, when I was promoted, along with the notings and remarks written on my promotion case by all the concerned officers who held these DPC's.' In his response of 1.10.2008 Appellate Authority, Shri S. S. Siddhu, Joint Director informed Shri T. S. Shergill as below: -
"The information sought by you does not fall under the violation of human rights, as alleged by you. Hence, it is regretted that the information sought cannot be provided. Cheque No. 034143 dated 22.9.2008 of SBI, Chandigarh is returned herewith."
Shri T.S. Shergill has then moved an appeal, again before Shri S. S. Siddhu, Jt. Director with the following prayer: -
"It is requested that photocopies of complete information sought for in my letter dated 1.9.2008 addressed to the DIB (copy enclosed for ready reference) may please be provided to me under section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, for my further action.' This prayer has been grounded on the following contention: -
"Human rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.' Shri A. K. Mishra, Dy. Director, IB, New Delhi has informed appellant Shri T. S. Shergill as below: -
"Your request under the RTI Act and the first appeal on the same subject were replied vide our letters of even number dated 5.09.08 and 1.10.2008. Hence no further appeal lies with this department".
Shri T. S. Shergill has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer: -
"The information refused pertained to me and my career and it has nothing to do with the security of the nation and its refusal amounted to the violation of my human rights, as this denial violated my human rights relating to equality and dignity, as enshrined in section 2 (d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. There is an element of corruption also in my promotion case. As such, I am making the request to your office after having exhausted all available senior formations to seek the concerned information.' 2 This appeal is dated 15.3.2009, which is beyond the time limit prescribed for a second appeal in section 19(3) of the RTI Act. Nevertheless, on the grounds of possible allegation of human rights violation, the appeal was heard through videoconference on 22.7.2010. The following are present.
Appellant at NIC Studio Chandigarh Shri T. S. Shergill Respondents at CIC Chamber, New Delhi Shri K. C. Meena, Joint Director, CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Shri S. P. Dubey, Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau Shri Meena also submitted a copy of a decision of this Commission in Shri Manohar Singh vs. Intelligence Bureau, CIC/WB/A/2009/000565 announced on 7.7.2010 in which we had held as follows: -
"In this case appellant Shri Manohar Singh has been altogether unable to substantiate any grounds for discrimination either on grounds of race, religion, region, creed or gender, which could constitute a ground for ascribing such discrimination to deliberate violation of human rights."
Shri K. C. Meena, Joint Director submitted that this is a purely administrative matter pertaining to the Intelligence Bureau and, therefore, outside the purview of the RTI Act. He submitted that in the present case also no such suspicion of discrimination stands established. Appellant Shri T. S. Shergill, however, submitted that he was short-listed in the DPC of 1983 but till 1989 he had not been promoted without any explanation resulting in a huge loss of seniority. Shri T. S. Shergill also submitted that IB maintains four kinds of papers. That to which he seeks access is only the lowest kind, and therefore may be classified as 'confidential' but has no bearing on national security.
DECISION NOTICE As we have held in our decision in Manohar Singh vs. Intelligence Bureau, we find that in this case also the issue is one of only delayed promotion. Although we do not wish to enter into the issue to whether this is fair and issue which is outside our jurisdiction, we cannot agree that the matter constitutes an allegation of human right violation. For this reason we deem that the present appeal is outside the jurisdiction of the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore, of this Commission. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
3Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22.7.2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 22.7.2010 4