Central Information Commission
Mr Swamy Amritanand Dev Tirth vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 26 April, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110 066
TEL: 01126105682
Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000630/SB
Dated 26.04.2016
Appellant : Swamy Amritanand Dev Tirth,
UTBBC8, HSC2/20,
Taloja Central Prison, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai410 210.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Home Affairs,
PP Division, NDCCII Bhawn,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 26.04.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2012 (copy not on record)
CPIO's reply : 26.07.2012 (copy not on record)
First appeal filed on : 18.06.2012/01.08.2012
F.A.A's order : 17.07.2012/05.09.2012
Second Appeal filed on : 02.02.2013
ORDER
1
1. Swamy Amritanand Dev filed an application dated 11.04.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on four points regarding newspaper reports on threat to his life including (a) whether there is any threat on his life or members of his family from SIMI or any other organization as reported in newspapers and (b) if so, whether any action has been taken to review the existing security of the applicant and or his family members and if yes, details thereof.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 02.02.2014 before the Commission on the ground that he has been provided irrelevant information and requested the Commission to instruct the CPIO concerned to provide relevant and proper information as mentioned in his first appeal and also to take disciplinary action against the CPIO under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Swamy Amritnanad Dev Tirath was represented by Shri Devang Parikh and the respondent Shri R. Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, MHA were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has sought information regarding threat perception to the appellant and not with regard to providing security to the appellant. Therefore, the reply of the respondent stating that the security of an individual is a State subject is not relevant in the present case. The appellant further submitted that assessment of threat perception is done by the respondent organization i.e. the MHA and hence, information should be provided by them to the appellant.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed that the subject of security of an individual is a State subject so the information can be sought from the State concerned. The respondent with regard to the information relating to threat perception, submitted that comments of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was sought vide letter dated 28.02.2013 and IB in response to this had informed the appellant that no information can be provided as the IB has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the Act. Decision:
6. The Commission after hearing both the parties and upon perusal of records observes that information in relation to threat perception has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission notes that the respondent had sought comments from the IB regarding the threat perception to the appellant and his family members. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act in this regard.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3