Central Information Commission
Pawan Agrawal vs Ministry Of Defence on 16 April, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/DODEF/A/2017/115761/SD
Date of Hearing :09/04/2018
Date of Decision:09/04/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Pawan Agarwal,
Respondent : 1.CPIO,
M/o Defence,
D (Ceremonials),
Room No. - 01,
South Block,
New Delhi
2.CPIO,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi
3.CPIO,
O/o Ministry of External Affairs,
Room No. - 2021,
A - Wing, JLN Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 15/12/2016
Respondent 1 replied on : 30/01/2017
RTI Application 30/01/2017
transferred to
Respondent(s) 2 & 3 on
1
First appeal filed on : 15/01/2017
First Appellate Authority : 14/02/2017
order
Second Appeal dated : 03/03/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know expenditure details of arrangements made for the reception of Barack Obama, Hon'ble President of America, during his visit to India for Republic Day, 2016 and number of security personnel deployed for the same.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent (1): Rajesh Choudhary, US & CPIO and Subrat Kumar, SO, M/o Defence, D (Ceremonials), South Block, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent (2): R.B.S. Negi, DS & CPIO, P.C. Anthwal, P-II Division, MHA, New Delhi, Meena Naidu, ACP/APIO/PHQ, Rajesh Kumar, ASI/PHQ, Sidheeque PP, Comdt (Ops)/ITBP, Deepak Singh, 2IC/ SSB, Gagan Bharti, SI, CRPF,CGO Complex, Vaithilingam S, Dy. Comdt/CISF, Ram Prabesh, Inspector/CISF, Ramesh Kumar SI/Delhi Police, DCP Security Unit, Surender Kumar, ACP/APIO, Delhi Police, Gurvinder Singh, SI and Shakuntla, ASI present in person.
Respondent (3): Vipul Pawar, Protocol Officer & Rep. of CPIO and Subhash Agrawal, Consultant, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi present in person.
CPIO, MHA submitted that the RTI Application was transferred vide their letter dated 07.03.2017 to Delhi Police; CRPF; ITBP; SSB; BSF; CISF as information sought was more closely related to the functioning of these public authorities. He further added upon Commission's instance that information is liable to be exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act.2
File No. : CIC/DODEF/A/2017/115761/SD APIO, PHQ, Delhi Police submitted that PIO/DCP Security Unit has denied the information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act vide their letter dated 10.03.2017. While PIO/Addl. DCP-I, New Delhi District has provided the number of companies deployed for security as well as expenditure details as per availability of records vide their letter dated 22.03.2017.
CPIO, CRPF replied on 05.04.2017 stating that security forces including CRPF are exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act except in cases where there are allegations of corruption and/or violation of human rights. Similar contention was made by CPIO, CISF; CPIO, ITBP who stated to have replied vide their letters dated 15.03.2017 and 28.03.2017, respectively.
CPIO, SPG stated that reply was provided on the RTI Application vide their letter dated 17.03.2017 exempting the information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
CPIO, Assam Rifles affirmed that the RTI Application has been received by them only upon issue of notice of hearing.
CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs submitted that reply was provided to the Appellant in the month of February, 2017 wherein information has been denied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as disclosure of these details will have a bearing on relations with foreign states. He further explained that disclosure of information of such nature will invariably lead to speculation about the kind of resources invested by the State for hosting dignitaries of different foreign nations. CPIO furthermore claimed Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act during hearing. CPIO also desired to bring out the issue of misuse of the provisions of RTI Act by the Appellant as he stated that in the past Commission has decided similar matters and that he repeatedly files same RTI Application within a gap of six months. CPIO also relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (W.P.(C) 845/2014) and Shail Sahni vs. Smt. Valsa Sara Mathew & Ors. (W.P.(C) 406/2016).
Decision Commission at the outset deems the present case to be a sheer wastage of resources of the government ex-chequer in having dozens of officers respond on the RTI Application as well as attend the hearing while Appellant remains 3 absent. The same is partly attributable to the vague request for information of the Appellant and partly the non-application of mind on the part of CPIO, MHA. CPIO, MHA failed to exercise his rationale in deciding whether or not the information can be disclosed or not before mechanically transferring the RTI Application to SPG and paramilitary forces. It is also pertinent to note that Appellant chose to not avail the opportunity of hearing despite having passively engaged significant number of public authorities with his short yet seemingly all pervasive RTI Application. While, it is not obligatory on RTI Applicants to attend Appeal/Complaint hearing, however, cases where such vague information is sought, presence of applicants is considered rudimentary.
Commission agrees to the denial of information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as from the perspective of the security forces, it will amount to disclosure of their strategic involvement, which may prejudicially affect the security concerns during such State receptions. As for the perspective of the CPIO, MEA, Commission completely concedes that disclosure of this information may have a bearing on bilateral relations of the country.
Commission also takes into account the reliance of CPIO, MEA on the judgments of Delhi High Court wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken into cognizance the misuse of RTI Act in similar instances.
No action is warranted in the matter. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4