Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 16 November, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/165830
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/172990
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/173000
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/172998
Dr. Nutan Thakur ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Left Wing Extremism Division
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Through: Dr. Ram Krishna Swarnakar - Dir.
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs(IS-I Division)
VIP Security Unit, Room No. 08, 2nd Floor,
MDC National Stadium, New Delhi-110001
Through: Smt. Archana Varma
PIO, Director(DP), Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Through: Sh. Arun Kumar Singh - DS
Date of Hearing : 12.11.2020
Date of Decision : 12.11.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second
Appeal
165830 08.05.2018 22.06.2018 14.07.2018 - 05.11.2018
172990 03.09.2018 27.09.2018 14.10.2018 - 19.12.2018
173000 09.07.2018 03.07.2018 22.10.2018 - 19.12.2018
172998 08.08.2018 28.08.2018 03.09.2018 - 19.12.2018
&
05.10.2018
Since the four Second Appeals have been filed by the same Appellant, the above
mentioned cases are clubbed together to avoid repetition in adjudication and
disposal.
Page 1 of 6
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/165830 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2018 seeking information on following 2 points:
(i) Kindly provide the copy of the file in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) (including Notesheet and correspondence of the MHA with various other offices) related with the separate unit to be created in the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for investigating important cases of Left Wing Extremism.
(ii) Kindly also provide the copy of the file in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) (including Notesheet and correspondence of the MHA with various other offices) related with setting up of a multi-disciplinary group to initiate action to choke funding sources of Maoists and to seize assets of their leaders, which comprises officers from various central agencies and the state police department, headed by an additional secretary and has representative from the Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, NIA and the CBDT [Central Board-of Direct Taxes) and the CBI, as also State intelligence departments and CID.
CPIO & Director (LWE-II) vide letter dated 22.06.2018 stated that the information sought does not come under the purview of the undersigned as CPIO. Therefore, requisite information in respect of above RTI application in respect of LWE-II & III may be treated as "Nil". The RTI application was forward to other CPIOs of the Division u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 14.07.2018 which was not adjudicated upon.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Respondent states that vide a reply dated 04.07.2018, the Appellant was informed that information sought by her cannot be provided to her citing exemptions provided under Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent has vide covering letter dated 03.11.2020, sent his submission to this effect. Appellant on the other hand, expresses dissatisfaction with the reply given to her by the Respondent.
Decision After hearing both parties and perusal of the contentions of both parties, it is noted that information sought by the Appellant has been rightly denied by the Page 2 of 6 Respondent, though the provision of law cited for the denial does not appear appropriate. The provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 appear more applicable and relevant in this case, which reads as under:
"8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;"
Emphasis supplied The information sought is undoubtedly sensitive and relates to national security and the appellant has not established any cause of larger public interest being served by disclosure of such information. The Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought need not be divulged because sometimes exercising restraint from disclosure serves larger public interest and this is a classic example of such a situation.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/172990 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2018 seeking information on following points:
1. Definition of Banned literature, as per any notification, order, circular etc of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India.
2. Definition of prohibited literature, as per any notification, order' circular etc of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India.
3. Definition of prohibited material and banned material, as per any notification, order, circular etc of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)' Government of India.
4. Circular, notification, Office order, Office memorandum etc issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India as regards banned literature, prohibited literature, banned material, prohibited material etc. The CPIO, IS-I Division, VIP Security Unit vide letter dated 27.09.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 14.10.2018 and the same was remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 6Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 23.10.2020 has been received from Section Officer, VS, IS-I Division, VIP Security Unit reiterating the earlier response that information sought by the Appellant is not held by the VIP Security Unit.
Another written submission dated 03.11.2020 has been received from CPIO/DS, Internal Security Division, IS-I Desk, MHA stating that information has already been provided to the Appellant vide communication dated 13.11.2018 and again on 31.01.2019.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Respondent has placed reliance on the reply dated 13.11.2018, whereby information had been duly provided to the Appellant at the very beginning, referring to Section 95 of the Cr.PC. The Appellant on the other hand expressed dissatisfaction with the reply of the Respondent and sought to challenge the correctness of the reply.
Decision:
Perusal of the facts of the case reveal that information as available on record, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Thus no further cause of action remains to be adjudicated in this case.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/173000 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2018 seeking information on following statement:-
"On Friday, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal accused the Centre of advising the L-G to ignore the part of' Supreme Court order that restricted the later's power to only three subjects-land, public order and law and order' The MHA has not advised LG to ignore any part of SC order, the Ministry said in a statement."
(1) Kindly provide the copy of one or more files in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) (including Notesheet and correspondence of MHA with various other offices) as regards the above news article, particularly in view of the official statement made by MHA, as stated in above article' The CPIO vide letter dated 03.07.2018 replied as under:-
Page 4 of 6Dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 22.10.2018 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 02.11.2020 has been received from DS/CPIO, MHA reiterating the earlier response that information sought by the Appellant is not held by them.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Respondent repeated during the course of hearing that there is no additional information available on official records, pertaining to the Appellant's queries. The queries relate to a matter which was adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought copy of file, Notesheet and correspondence about a statement wherein "MHA has not advised LG to ignore any part of SC order". The query itself appears flawed and no information can be generated in this regard.
Decision:
Perusal of the facts of the case reveal that information as available on record, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Thus no further cause of action remains to be adjudicated in this case.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/172998 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2018 seeking information on following 2 points:-
1. Kindly provide copies of the various Guidelines issued from time to time by the Government of India and the National Investigation Agency [NIA) as regards the policy and parameters for initiation and/or acceptance of NIA enquiry/investigation in matters initiated by the Central Government.
2. Kindly also provide copies of the various Guidelines issued from time to time by the Government of India and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as regards the policy and parameters for initiation and/or acceptance of NIA enquiry/investigation in matters referred by the various State Governments.
CPIO, Dy. Secretary (CTCR) vide letter dated 28.08.2018 stated that the cases are entrusted to the NIA for investigation of a case by the Central Government, as per provisions contained in Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 03.09.2018 and the same remained non-adjudicated.
Page 5 of 6CPIO, Dy. Inspector General (Policy) vide letter dated 05.10.2018 stated that as per Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated 09.06.2011 the National Investigation Agency has been included in second schedule of RTI Act, 2005 as such exempted to provided information sought under RTI Act, except in cases involving corruption & human rights violations.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 27.10.2020 has been received from Asstt. IG/NIA, CPIO, MHA reiterating the earlier response as already discussed above.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and the Appellant stated that the instant case has already been decided by an earlier order of this Commission.
Decision:
Examination of records of the case reveal that the instant case stands decided by an earlier order dated 01.09.2020, passed by this Commission and hence adjudication of this appeal is barred by the principles of res judicata. No further direction is required to be passed this case.
With the aforesaid observation, these Second Appeals are disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मख् ु य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6