Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vinod Kumar vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 8 October, 2021

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई  द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या   / Second Appeal No CIC/MHOME/A/2019/117048

Maj. Vinod Kumar                                           ...   अपीलकता /Appellant

                                  VERSUS/बनाम
                                                         ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
CPIO
Ministry of Home Affairs

CPIO
Tihar Jail, New Delhi

Date of Hearing                        :   07.10.2021
Date of Decision                       :   08.10.2021
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on               :   31.10.2018
PIO replied on                         :   13.12.2018
First Appeal filed on                  :   27.02.2019
First Appellate Order on               :   28.03.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on        :   11.04.2019

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application vide letter dated 31.10.2018 seeking information on the following points:-

The CPIO, PF-I Desk, Police II Divisionvide letter dated 13.12.2018 (copy not enclosed) replied for para 2(a) & 2(j) as under:-

Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2019. The FAA/Additional Secretary (P), vide order dated 28.03.2019 stated that the IS-I Division had earlier provided reply for point 2

(f) of the RTI application vide letter dated 06.12.2018, hence point 2 (f) did not pertain to Police-II Division. With regard to point 2 (j), it was stated that the RTI application was transferred to the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar Jail for providing necessary information. Thus, available information had been provided to the Appellant who did not bring new facts in his appeal.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Dy. Secretary, PF-I Desk, Police-II Division, MHA vide letter dated 01.10.2021 wherein the response of the FAA was reiterated. Hence, there is no need for Police-II Division to Page 2 of 4 provide further information. However, the RTI application was forwarded to IS- I Division and Central Prisons, Tihar Jail.

A written submission has also been received from the CPIO, IS-I Division, VIP Security Unit, MHA vide letter dated 06.10.2021 wherein it was stated that a reply was sent by their unit vide letter dated 06.12.2018. Further, the RTI application was also transferred to P-II Division, MHA u/s 6 (3) with a request to provide information on points a and j directly to the Appellant. The first appeal was filed with the P-II Division and not IS-I Division. Further, the information in points b, c, f, h, d, e and g are exempted u/s 8 (1) (g) and (j) and Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule. The same was conveyed to the Appellant on 06.12.2018.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the response provided on points f and j of the RTI application.

The Respondent represented by Shri Deepak Kumar, Dy Secretary, Police Finance, MHA; Shri Rajiv Sharma, DS IS-I Division, MHA and Smt. Sangeeta Chavan, Nodal PIO, Tihar Jail participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Sharma stated that the information in point f cannot be shared as disclosing the statistical details of the number of individuals who have been given Z plus security cover can be misused later when an addition to the existing list of individuals takes place which can indirectly result in disclosure of identity of the individual and threat to their security. Smt Chauhan from Tihar Jail stated that the RTI application/ First Appeal was not received by their department. However, while stating that a response would be provided to the Appellant in writing she stated during the hearing that the per head ration allowance of each prisoner is Rs 42.23.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is not convinced with the argument of the CPIO, IS-I Division regarding any indirect threat to life and liberty of individuals due to disclosure of mere statistical data in response to point (f) of the RTI application. While the total number of protectees under Z plus security cover is purely statistical in nature, the names and reason for providing such levels of security need not be provided as it serves no larger public interest and would attract the provisions under Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission directs Shri Rajiv Sharma, DS IS-I Division, MHA to furnish information to the Appellant against query number (f) of the RTI application only regarding total number of beneficiaries to whom the Z plus security cover is provided.

Smt. Sangeeta Chavan, Nodal PIO, Tihar Jail is directed to provide information as per available records on point number (j), to the Appellant.

Compliance reports must reach the Commission, from Shri Rajiv Sharma, DS IS-I Division, MHA and Smt. Sangeeta Chavan, Nodal PIO, Tihar Jail by 15.11.2021.

With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4