Central Information Commission
Mrneeraj Bhargava vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 3 August, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/001192/SB
Dated 03.08.2016
Appellant : Dr. Neeraj Bhargava, SMO,
50 Bn. Indo Tibetan Border Force,
Sector26, Panchkula,
Haryana134 116.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi110 001.
The Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General,
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (MHA),
Block2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi110 003.
Date of Hearing : 03.08.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.11.2014
CPIO's reply : 10.12.2014
First Appeal filed on : 19.12.2014/09.01.2015
FAA's order : 07.01.2015/05.02.2015
1
Second appeal filed on : 10.04.2015
ORDER
1. Dr. Neeraj Bhargava filed an application dated 21.11.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information on (1)no. of vacancies released for Short Service Commission medical officers of armed forces of Union against reserved vacancies for medical officers in ITBP till 2014 and (2) if yes, how many Short Service Commission medical officers of armed forces have been appointed against reserved vacancies in ITBP for the post of Assistant Commandant Medical Officer. The RTI application has been transferred by the M.H.A. to the ITBP for furnishing the information to the appellant.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 10.04.2015 on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information on the grounds of I.T.B.P. being an exempted organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission's intervention in the matter so that his service related grievances may be addressed at the earliest. Hearing:
3. The appellant Dr. Neeraj Bhargava was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Harish Chander, CPIO and Director, MHA was present in person. The second respondent, ITBP sought exemption from personal appearance and requested the Commission to decide the case on the basis of his written submission.
4. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant relates to the ITBP and therefore, the RTI application of the appellant was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to ITBP vide letter dated 09.12.2014 under intimation to the appellant. 2
5. The respondent, ITBP submitted its written submissions dated 27.07.2016, wherein it is stated that the ITBP has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this information sought cannot be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent, MHA and perusing the submission of the ITBP observes that under Section 24(1) r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, ITBP has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the ITBP except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian v. Adarsh Sharma) has held that: "5. .......if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be welladvised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act.............It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not........."
7. In view of the above, the Commission would like the ITBP to consider the request of the appellant and provide information to the extent possible 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