Central Information Commission
Mrp C Bali vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 29 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2015/000197/SB
Dated 29.03.2016
Appellant : Shri Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Nagar,
Batala Road,
Amritsar, Punjab143 001.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
P.P. Division, NDCCII Building,
3rd Floor, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi110 001.
Central Public Information Officer,
Special Protection Group,
Cabinet Secretariat,
9, Race Course Road,
New Delhi110011.
Date of Hearing : 29.03.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.10.2014
CPIO replied on : 18.11.2014/03.12.2014
First Appeal filed on : 17.11.2014
FAA's Order on : 31.12.2014
1
Second appeal filed on : 19.01.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Parbodh Chander Bali filed an application dated 10.10.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on five points pertaining to security provided to the Prime Minister of India, ExPrime Ministers and their relatives including (i) rules regarding providing security to relatives of the Prime Minister of India and Ex Prime Ministers of India, (ii) list of relatives of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India to whom security was provided and (iii) list of relatives of Dr. Manmohan Singh, ExP.M.to whom security is still provided even after he resigned as Prime Minister.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 19.01.2015 before the Commission on the ground that information sought by him has been denied to him both by the CPIO and the FAA taking shelter under Sections 24(1), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and requested the Commission to order the CPIO to provide the information, impose penalty under Section 20(1) & 20(2) on the erring officers and award compensation to him. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Parbodh Chander Bali attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondents Shri R. Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, MHA and Shri R.K. Gupta, Senior Security Officer, SPG (Ministerial) were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him. The appellant further submitted that the security to the relatives of the Prime Minister and Ex Prime Minister is provided without any uniform standard because of which the Government exchequer is suffering losses as some relatives are provided security and some are not. 2
5. The respondent (MHA) submitted that the appellant has been informed vide letter dated 18.11.2014 that the security to the Prime Minister, Ex Prime Minister and their relatives/family is provided as per the provisions of the SPG Act,1988. The respondent further submitted that the details of the assessment of threat on the basis of which the security is provided cannot be divulged as the same may endanger the life and liberty of a person and can also invade the privacy of an individual and hence, the same is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)
(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act respectively. Nonetheless, the RTI application for further details was transferred to the CPIO, SPG.
6. The respondent (SPG) submitted that information on point no. 1 has already been provided to the appellant by the MHA and information sought in nos. 25 of the RTI application cannot be provided as the SPG has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the Act except in cases of corruption or human rights violations and the same has been intimated to the appellant vide letter dated 03.12.2014. Decision:
7. The Commission observes that part information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent and the remaining information with regard to threat perception and list of relatives of the Prime Minister and the Ex Prime Minister to whom the security was provided or from whom the security has been withdrawn has been sought from an organization (SPG) that has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Sections 24(1) of the Act, unless there is involvement of corruption or human rights violations which is not so in the present case. Hence, no further information can be provided to the appellant.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
3
9. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 4