Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 20, 2009.

6. Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate represented the Public Authority.

7. The Applicant was present in person alongwith Sh. Prantap Kalra, Advocate during the hearing.

Decision

8. The Appellant vide subsequent submissions dated 20.08.2009 further contended that the stashing of Indian Funds in Swiss Banks is adverse to public interest. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had admitted a Petition filed by the former Law Minister Mr. Ram Jethmalani and five others including former Punjab DGP Mr. K P S Gill alleging that the Government of India was not taking appropriate action in this regard. It has also been contended that necessary and adequate information was not being supplied to the Swiss Government and substantiated his argument with clippings of press reports indicating that documents submitted by the Government in 2007, in connection with yet another accused, one Mr. Hasan Ali Khan, were forged. The Appellant has furthermore elaborated on the non applicability of the exemptions provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005 in this case as also stating that the exemptions under Section 8 (1) are not absolute by citing various decisions of the CIC passed on this issue from time to time. Each of the decisions quoted by the Appellant indicate that the exemptions under Section 8(1) in itself do not attain absoluteness and have to be weighed against the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act 2005 in order to determine whether "larger public interest" outweighs the need to exempt the information from disclosure. It is also the case of the Appellant that the Public Authority has failed to demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to national security or sovereignty and integrity, and has simply quoted the section without explaining the same.