Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The plea of appellant is aimed at gaining access to names of all those Z+ security cover protectees who are not holding any Constitutional or Statutory office. The appellant submits that the plea taken by the PIO is contrary to the law as well as the facts since merely publicizing the names of security protectees, the rules for granting such protection, the cost of providing Z+ security cover and the source for defraying the cost incurred for security cover would not ipso facto comprise the security. He contends that the information sought is not exempt under clauses (g) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act as invoked by the respondent PIO. While addressing arguments against applicability of clause (g); the appellant contends that the protectees are already under a threat perception for which they are adequately provided with security. He submits that the security cover at state expense is a largesse and the same cannot be kept classified from the citizenry. Adverting to the proviso appended to clause

(j), he submits that the details of protectees under the Z+ security cover cannot be kept from the Parliament and hence the same cannot be denied to a citizen. The appellant points out that Mr. Amit Shah who happens to be the National President of Bhartiya Janta Party has been granted Z+ security cover by MHA since July 2014 despite him not being holding any constitutional or statutory office. The appellant seeks the reasons for grant of such security cover and the expenses incurred due to the same. He relies on various media reports wherein it has been reported that Mr. Mukesh Ambani Chairman of the Reliance Industries Ltd. has been granted with 'Z' security cover on cost reimbursement basis (approximately 15 to 18 lacs per month) to the Govt. of India. He argues that grant of security cover to eminent persons under threat is the duty of state in cases where the beneficiary holds a high office. As per the appellant, the act of bearing expenses for providing security cover to key State functionaries & Constitutional dignitaries by Govt. of India is justified since they cannot perform their vital functions while reeling under threat. However, the appellant submits that defraying cost of elite Z+ security cover to private persons must not be meted out from the state exchequer. He submits that since the cost of security cover granted to Mr. Amit Shal is borne out from the exchequer, the Parliament and similarly, the public has a right to know about the arrangement. Upon a query by the Commission, as to the source of his knowledge that cost of security cover provided to Mr. Amit Shah is being borne by GoI; the appellant submits that since the PIO had not responded adequately, he was unaware if the security cover cost is being charged to Mr. Amit Shah or not. Yet another limb of the argument advanced was that since the information desired cannot be denied to the Parliament, the same cannot be denied to him in terms of the proviso appended to clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

5. He further relies on certain media reports claiming that Z security cover has also been extended to Shri Swami Ramdev, who does not hold any constitutional office. He has filed on record the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by a 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Laloo versus State of Meghalaya & Ors. and invited attention towards the relevant excerpts wherein the address of a former Judge despite being a Y category protectee was revealed in the judicial order. The contention of the appellant is thus aimed at exhibiting that revelation of identity and address of a protectee was not deemed classified by the Apex Court.

10. Clause (g) is based on the 'potential harm' theory. While assessing the dislcosability of a piece of information, the PIO is enjoined to apply his mind as what effects the revelation may produce. There has to be something more to mere guesswork by the PIO as the expression „which would endanger‟ cannot be read as „which may endanger‟. However, in the present case, information regarding the beneficiaries of Z+ security cover has been sought. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the protectees are already facing highest level of threat and that is why they have been accorded with the highest level of security cover. Revelation of names of protectees if not adding on to the danger their life or physical safety would be counterproductive to the efficacy of security cover. The query, when seen from this perspective attracts the exemption under clause (g).