Central Information Commission
Shri Vijendra Rana, Ex. Cdr. vs Intelligence Bureau (Ib) on 16 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00400 dated 1-4-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant Shri Vijendra Rana, Ex. Cdr.
Respondent: Intelligence Bureau (IB)
FACTS
By an application of 23-1-08 Shri Vijendra Rana, Ex. Cdr. Tihar Jail, Delhi applied to the Director (IB) seeking the following information:
a) "Subject matter: Navy War Room Leak Case.
b) Time/ period to which information relates: may 2005 to Oct 2005.
c) Details of Information: Certified extract of notings/ letter/ any other document of IB/ other agency which opined that, espionage has been ruled out/ there was no espionage or spying involved in the Navy War Room Leak case or any such possibility had been ruled out at any stage of IB investigations."
Shri Rana sought to address the application of Section 24 (1) to the IB in the following manner:
"Section 24:- Since the information pertains to gross human rights violations, wherein I am behind bars since past two years in a false case of espionage, the hurdle of IB being specified in the second schedule of the RTI Act may be overcome."
In his response of 15-2-2008 Shri S.K. Bansal, Dy. Director stated as follows:
"As per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, Chapter VI, Section 24 (1) and second schedule, the Intelligence Bureau has been exempted from providing any information/ detail on the subject matter excepting information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations. However, we do not consider that the present case comes under human rights violation as indicated by you in your application and hence, it is regretted that the information sought cannot be provided."
Shri Vijendra Rana has, therefore, moved a complaint with this Commission directly with the following prayer:
1"It is thus prayed that Director, Intelligence Bureau be prevailed upon to provide me, "certified extract of notings/ letter/ any other documents of IB/ other agency which opined that, espionage has been ruled out/ there was no espionage or spying involved in by the navel officer in the Navy War Room Leak case or any such possibility had been ruled out at any stage of IB investigation."
The complaint was heard on 16-7-08 at Tihar Jail, Delhi. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Vijendra Rana, Ex. Cdr.
Shri Ravi Kant Sharma.
CDR (Retd) Mukesh Saini.
Respondents Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal, DD, IB.
Shri S. M. Chandrasekhar Addl. DD, IB.
Appellant Shri Vijendra Rana submitted that all he wished to learn from the IB was whether he has been charged with treason or with contravention of commercial law. In this context, he pleaded that as submitted in his memorandum to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, a copy of which was attached with his complaint, he had been severely tortured and therefore, the question of human rights was at issue.
Respondent Shri S.K. Bansal submitted that information pertaining to allegations of human rights violation is without doubt not excluded under sub Section (1), under which clause the IB, listed at No.1 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005, stood excluded from the Act, such allegation must pertain to the concerned excluded organisation and not to some other.
DECISION NOTICE Section 24 (1) of the Act reads as follows:
"Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:2
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request."
It is quite clear that although information pertaining to allegations of human rights violation is not excluded under this sub Section appellant Shri Rana has not sought any information pertaining to allegation of human rights violation from the IB. Simply asking what charges have been made against him is not an allegation of human rights violation. In this case, therefore, the complaint of Shri Vijendra Rana is unsustainable and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 16-7-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 16-7-2008 3