Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000252, 275, 578, 579 & 587SM
CIC/SM/A/2011/000285
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 27 May 2011
Date of decision : 27 May 2011
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Nisha Priya Bhatia
I263, Naraina,
New Delhi.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat,
(EAII Section), Bikaner House (Annexe),
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 011.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Sumati Kumar, Director & CPIO,
(ii) Shri Sudhir Walia, Advocate,
(iii) Shri I P Sharma, Consultant,
(iv) Shri Shivendra Kumar, Section Officer
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard all these six cases together today. Both the parties were
present during the hearing and made their submissions.
3. In six separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought a variety of
information ranging from subjects such as the action taken on her applications
CIC/WB/A/2010/000252, 275, 578, 579 & 587SM
and letters for allotment of accommodation outside the training campus to
information regarding installation of cameras and floodlights around her official
residence. In all these cases, the CPIO had not provided any information on the
ground that the Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat was
exempted from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act having been
included in the Second Schedule in terms of Section 24 of that Act. The
Appellate Authority had also endorsed the decision of the CPIO in all these
cases.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that all the information that she
had sought had a relation either to the violation of human rights or to allegations
of corruption against individuals within the organisation. She clarified by stating
that the set of information regarding the action taken on applications for shifting
accommodation or installation of floodlights and cameras around her official
accommodation had a clear nexus with the violation of her human rights as a
woman. Similarly, she explained that the remaining information such as about
the appointment of some individuals to the service of the organisation (RAW) or
the statements of assets and liabilities of a former Secretary had a clear relation
to allegations of corruption as she suspected nepotism in the former and
misuse of power in siphoning off public money by the incumbent head of the
organisation in the latter. On the other hand, the Respondents argued that her
perception about the violation of human rights or acts of corruption by the
officials of the organisation was without a basis and, therefore, there was no
ground for disclosure of any information.
5. Section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act exempts those
CIC/WB/A/2010/000252, 275, 578, 579 & 587SM
organisations dealing with security and intelligence matters from the application
of its provisions. However, the proviso to this Section mandates that information
relating to the allegations of human rights violation or corruption should be
disclosed. Thus, the key issue is whether the variety of information sought by
the Appellant in these cases would indeed amount to information relating either
to human rights violation or acts of corruption.
6. We carefully considered the facts of all these cases in some detail. We
also took note of the various arguments offered by the Appellant in support of
her demand. We find it very difficult to accept that the information sought by her
had any clear nexus with either any human rights violation or corruption. Just
because the authorities did not shift her accommodation on her demand or
some floodlights and cameras were installed near her house within the
residential campus, it cannot be concluded that her human rights had been
violated. Similarly, just because she suspects that the then secretary of the
organisation might have pilfered funds from the public exchequer or some
relatives of a former secretary had been appointed wrongfully, we cannot
conclude that indeed acts of corruption had been committed. If information has
to be disclosed by exempted organisations merely on the basis of suspicion or
certain perceptions of the information seekers, it would be pointless to classify
certain organisations as exempt. It is, to say the least, very frivolous to allege
that installation of floodlights and surveillance cameras in a residential area of
the RAW, some of these near the Appellant’s residence, is intended specially to
violate her human rights. In any case, none of the information sought by her in
the six cases convincingly establish any nexus with either human rights
violation or any act of corruption. In the absence of such elements, there is no
CIC/WB/A/2010/000252, 275, 578, 579 & 587SM
ground for us to direct the CPIO to disclose the desired information, RAW being
an exempt organisation in terms of the Second Schedule to the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
7. We find no merit in her appeals. These are disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000252, 275, 578, 579 & 587SM