Central Information Commission
Shri A.M. Attar vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 7 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2007/01305
Dated: 7 Jan 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri A.M. Attar
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs
ADJUNCT ORDER
1. Shri A.M. Attar of Mumbai filed an RTI-application with the Public Information Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, on 1 June 2007, seeking information/documents on 31 counts regarding the Bilateral Agreement between the Government of India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the travel of Haj pilgrims, and details of delegations of persons who visited Saudi Arabia for preparations for the Haj pilgrimage, for the last ten years. Being dissatisfied by the delayed response from the Public Authority, the Appellant approached the Central Information Commission vide his appeal dated 18.09.2007. While deciding the Appeal the Commission passed a detailed order dated 05.03.2008. The relevant contents of the said order are as hereunder:
".......6.1. As for the details of the Bilateral Agreement between the Government of India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the travel of the Haj pilgrims, it is felt that the details provided to the Appellant are comprehensive. However, in case the Appellant feels there is any lacunae in the information provided, he may point these out to the Respondents who will get 15 working days to provide any clarification required by the Appellant. The Commission also sees no harm in providing the Appellant with a copy of the Agreement arrived at between the Government of India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as this is a public document. In case the Respondents have any problem in providing the Appellant a copy of it, they may revert back to the Commission and also the Appellant.
6.2. As for questions 5 to 13 related to details of delegations of persons who visit Saudi Arabia for preparations for the Haj pilgrimage, the Appellant has desired for information for the last 10 years, whereas on most counts, the Respondents have supplied informed for four years or so. During the hearing, the Appellant pointed out that there was lot of wasteful expenditure on such travels and delegations. He, therefore, wanted the details thereof. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that such details were with the Ministry of Civil Aviation as they included the sharing of the chartering of aircrafts to send the delegates to Saudi Arabia. The Appellant on the other hand stated that the Ministry dealing with such aspects of the Haj pilgrimages was the Ministry of External Affairs. As the Gulf Division of the Ministry of External Affairs looks after the Haj affairs through the Haj Cell, the Commission directs the Respondents to collect the information from the Ministry of Civil Aviation and disclose it to the Appellant. For this, they may get in touch with the Ministry of Civil Aviation and indicate to the Appellant the reasonable time which will be taken in the whole exercise. In the interest of transparency and also to contain unnecessary and infructuous expenditure as alleged by the Appellant, it is in public interest that this information is collected and supplied to the Appellant as early as possible. 6.3. As for items 14-18, the reply that the Appellant received from the Respondents was that the information was still being collected. However, there was no indication as to the time limit within which the Appellant would be supplied with the information. The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondent to indicate to the Appellant a reasonable period of time with an outside limit within which the information can be supplied. This should be done by 25 March 2008.
6.4. As for items 19-31, the Commission decides to accept the submission of the Respondents that the information does not fall under the RTI-Act. The questions asked under these items pertain to reasons and justifications for various aspects of the Haj pilgrimage like the reserved quota, booking, accommodation in advance, etc. etc. The Commission does not expect the Respondents to create or generate information as these items will require them to, hence for these items the Commission accepts the submission of the Respondents. ....."
2. Subsequently, the Commission upon receipt of communication dated 25.03.08 filed by the Respondent Public Authority, directed the MEA to depute an official to carry the Bilateral Agreement in a sealed cover for examination on 28th April 2008 before the Commission. Subsequently an order was passed on 26.05.2008 by the Commission, directing as follows:
"..... in the case of Shri A.M. Attar Vs. Ministry of External Affairs regarding the Bilateral Agreement between the Government of India and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the Haj Pilgrims, the Commission had the opportunity of examining for itself a copy of the Agreement and also heard the representatives of the Ministry, Shri V.K. Sharma, Deputy Secretary (Haj), on 28 April 2008, about the difficulties they could face as a result of the disclosure of the Agreement. The Commission partly accepts the submission of the Respondents and directs them to supply a copy of the Agreement to the Appellant after applying Section 10 of the RTI-Act to the particular issue mentioned by him to the Commission. ......"
3. However, upon non receipt of the desired information despite the abovementioned order dated 26.05.2008 passed by the Commission, the Appellant herein approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition. The writ petition being WP(C) No. 11930/2009 was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 24.09.2009 remanding the case back to the Information Commissioner to pass a fresh speaking order.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 23, 2009.
5. Dr. M Areem, Attache (Haj) and Mr. R. Chachra, US (RTI) represented the Public Authority.
6. The Appellant was represented by Mr. Padma Kumar S and Ms. Nasreen Alam, Advocates during the hearing.
7. During the hearing, both the parties reiterated their contentions. However, the Respondent Public Authority who had earlier in their communication dated 25.03.2008 sought exemption under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005, at this stage sought exemption under section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act 2005. The earlier exemption sought under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 had already been dealt with on the previous occasion, hence the same need not be reiterated. However, the seeking of fresh grounds to justify non disclosure of information by the Respondent Public Authority does not provide additional merit to the case. More so, when the order dated 26.05.2008 had been passed after considering the contentions of the Respondent as submitted on 28.04.2008 and after a perusal of the Bilateral Agreement. It is observed by the Commission that no exemption under Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act 2005 was sought by the Respondent Public Authority even till 28.04.2008. Hence it is evident that this is at best only an afterthought on the part of the Respondent at this stage. The Respondents' only verbal contention during the hearing was that the disclosure of complete information pertaining to the said Bilateral Agreement could have adverse impact on the foreign relations of not only India but also diplomatic relations among the various Muslim nations whose delegates travel to the holy pilgrimage of Haj, and since the Agreement was information received in confidence from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, hence the disclosure of such information was unwarranted, according to the Respondent. However, interestingly no additional documents have been submitted by the Respondent at this stage to substantiate their contention or justifying the non furnishing of information despite clear directions of this Commission.
8. Since the impugned order dated 26.05.2008 was passed by the predecessor of this office upon perusal of the Bilateral Agreement, accordingly, the said document in question was once again directed to be produced before this Commission for reconsideration and examination of the same. After detailed study of the Bilateral Agreement on Arrangements & Bases of Haj Affairs between the Haj Affairs Delegation of the Republic of India and the Ministry of Haj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Commission confirms the opinion of the predecessor Information Commissioner that only certain part of the Agreement may at best be severed applying provisions of Section 10 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of the arguments and apprehension expressed by the Respondent about the damage to international relations, the part of the Clause Two of the Agreement which specifies the quota of the Indian Hajis qua the total population of the Muslims may be severed in order that no sensitive information may be disclosed in public which may have detrimental impact on the foreign relations between the various nations. Similarly the figures (data) depicting the number of Hajis in the Clause Four of the Agreement may also be severed from the information and exempted from disclosure. The remaining information in the Bilateral Agreement does not pertain to any sensitive data, as agreed by the Respondent also and the same should accordingly be provided to the Appellant within the 20th January 2010.
9. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The judgement was reserved and pronounced on January 7, 2010 in open court.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri A.M. Attar, SIIT, Shop No. 9, Byculla House, Sir J.J. Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008
2. The Joint Secretary (Wel & Inf) & CPIO, Room No. 207, Akbar Bhavan, Ministry of External Affairs, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021
3. The Additional Secretary (PP) & Appellate Authority, Room No. - 144 C, South Block, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi -110011
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC