Central Information Commission
Mrsatendra Singh vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 10 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/YA/A/2015/000004/BJ
Appellant : Dr. Satendra Singh
A5, 303, Olive County
Sector - 5, Vasundhara
Ghaziabad - 201 012 (UP)
Respondent(s) : CPIO
Deputy Commissioner of Security (CA)
Ministry Of Civil Aviation
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
I, II, III Janpath Bhawan
New Delhi110001
Date of Hearing : 10/06/2016
Date of Decision : 10/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 21.10.2014
CPIO's response 05.11.2014
Date of filing the First appeal 12.11.2014
First Appellate Authority's response 01.12.2014
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 22.12.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant, a physically challenged person with locomotor disability, vide his application dated 21/10/2014 had sought information on the following 07 points:
Page 1 of 41. "BCAS released new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for screening of passengers "with special needs and medical conditions" in March, 2014 and many people with disabilities and organisations raised their concern about it. Kindly indicate the detailed steps taken in this regard to implement their suggestions.
2. India is one of the contracting states of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The ICAO Circular 274AT/1141999 titled "Access to air transport by Persons with Disabilities"
states in section 15 that: "...Organisations that represent persons with disabilities should be consulted in the development and implementation of training programmes." Give the details of all the persons with disabilities and organisations working for disabled people contacted for and included in all the training programs conducted by BCAS.
3. India has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in 2007 which mandates us to harmonise our policies with this legal instrument. Article 17 of the CRPD is about 'protecting the integrity of the person'. Give the details of all circulars issued by BCAS on 'protecting the integrity of the disabled persons'.
4. Give the details of all the final enquiry reports with regard to complaints received by/on behalf of persons with disabilities using assistive devices (orthosis and prosthesis) in the last 5 years.
5. Give the final recommendations of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)on the use of non ionising Millimetre wave technology at airports in India;
6. Give the details of the feedback received by persons with disabilities in the piloting of millimetre wave technology at airports in India;
7. Despite orders from PMO Office, ratification of UNCRPD, directives from Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, NIC and WCAG 2.0 guidelines. The website of BCAS is not accessible to persons with disabilities. Give the timeframe in which it will be made disabledfriendly."
The CPIO vide his letter dated 05/11/2014 furnished the available information on points 1 to 3. However, with regard to Points 4, 5 & 6 related to civil aviation security, it was stated that such disclosure would prejudicially affect the security and hence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that point 07 was not covered under the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12/11/2014 before the FAA on the ground that incomplete information has been provided and reasons given for denial under Section 8(1)(a) is not sustainable in the light of CIC decisions. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on 01/12/2014 upholding the decision of CPIO on points 1,2,4,5, & 6. Query on Point 03 was transferred to DGCA as it was closely related to them for furnishing further information directly to the appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 2 of 4
Appellant: Dr. Satendra Singh (M:9971782076);
Respondent: Mr. Mathai P. U., Dy. Director (M:9871708659);
The appellant reiterated his request for information on each of the points mentioned in the RTI application. He particularly laid emphasis on points 4, 5 & 6. The respondent gave a generalized reply stating that they had issued SOP for screening of passengers with special needs and medical conditions in consultation with stakeholders. It was also informed that they had not issued any circular on protecting the integrity of the disabled persons except the SOPs stated above. During discussions on the subject the appellant raised pertinent issues regarding safeguarding the rights of disabled persons who are harassed by screeners. As regards disclosure of the inquiry reports with respect to the complaints lodged by disabled persons with BCAS and action taken thereon, no satisfactory reply was given by the respondent. During discussions, the appellant sought details of such inquiry reports for the last two years only. The appellant had also raised in his RTI application, very important and critical issues related to the new and innovative technologies being adopted by various advanced countries at different airports for persons with disabilities. The respondent agreed to have this matter examined.
DECISION:
In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that information on point no.1, 2, 3 & 4 may be given, information on points no. 6 & 7 only if available in material form as per Section 2(f) of the RIT Act, 2005 may also be given. However, with respect to point no. 5 wherein recommendations of atomic energy are sought, the Commission is of the view that this matter may be reexamined in the public authority and if not exempted under the RTI Act, 2005 it may be disclosed only after approval by the competent authority. The above directions shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:Page 3 of 4
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 4 of 4