CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000262/SG/12316
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000262/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich
901-905 & 907, Naurang House
21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg
Connaught Place
New Delhi -- 110 001
Respondent: : Ms. Sanjukta Ray
CPIO & Dy. Secretary
Prime Minister's Office,
South Block, New Delhi.
RTI application : 25/03/2010
PIO reply : 21/04/2010
First appeal : Not enclosed
FAA order : 23/06/2010
Second appeal : 29/09/2010
Information sought:
Through 18 queries the appellant sought notings, communications and other records relating to 'The
correspondence from the Ministry of Home Affairs, signed by the Joint Secretary addressed to the
Intelligence Bureau, the Cabinet Secretary and the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of India, New
Delhi, which formed the basis for the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of india
Order No. 11/21022/31(362) 97-FCN (MU) dated 8th November, 2000 prohibiting the receipt of foreign
contribution by Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society ("Watch Tower")' to PIO FCRA.
PIO's reply:
"In continuation of this office memorandum dated 13.4.10 transferring your application dated 5.4.2010 to
the Ministry of Home Affairs, the matter was referred to the office for inputs. The office has stated that as
per available records, there is no information to offer.
Grounds for First appeal:
-------
FAA order:
3. In the appeal, you have furnished copy of Bombay High Court’s decision dated 6.12.2001 in the First
Appeal No. 37 of 2001 in the matter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of India vs. Union of
India and two others. In paragraph 20 thereof, the following reference has been made, which relates to this
office:
“The document in question is a secret communication from the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the
signature of Joint Director to the Intelligence Bureau, to the Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secretary to the
Prime Minister of India, New Delhi.
Page 1 of 3
You have drawn attention to the above, and on this basis, submitted that this demonstrates that this office
is the recipient, and also likely sender, either requesting information or responding to the report from the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Consequently, the information sought is a part of PMO’s reference and there
was no basis to transfer the request to the another Ministry. You have also objected to the formulation
employed in the response, pointing out that it has not been claimed that no such information is available.
Against the aforementioned facts and arguments advanced, briefly summarized hereinabove, you have
sought direction for disclosure of the information sought, free of charge.
It is observed that the High Court decision copy now made available was not furnished earlier.
Regulation of the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution is a business allocated to the Ministry
of Home Affairs under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. According to
clause (ii) of section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, an application requesting for information the
subject matter of which is more closely connected with the information of another public authority shall
be transferred to that other public authority. Therefore, in the absence of the information furnished now at
the appeal stage, the action of transferring your appeal was in accordance with the law, as per facts
available. However, the High Court decision copy now made available sheds new light on the matter.
From the excerpts of the decision cited in paragraph 3 above, it is clear that the communication in
question is one from Intelligence Bureau, rather than from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Earlier, only the
records relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs were searched as acceptance and utilization of foreign
contribution is business allocated to the Ministry of Home Affairs. In light of the fresh information,
records relating to the Intelligence Bureau will also have to be searched and a fresh point-wise response
given, free of charge, taking care that in case no information is available, the same should be clearly
stated. CPIO is directed, through endorsed copy of this letter, to request the office to carry out search as
above and, after obtaining the office’s inputs, send point-wise response to you within one week of this
decision.
Grounds for Second appeal:
All records must be maintained as per Section 4 (1) (a) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Avi Singh representing Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich;
Respondent: Ms. Sanjukta Ray, CPIO & Dy. Secretary;
The PIO has stated that the files on which the communication and file notings would exist have been
sent back to the IB, if they had been received. The PIO has stated that as per the PMO’s schedule all
papers and files are sent back to respective ministries within six months. The matter was discussed with
the Appellant who has stated that according to him understanding of the Section-4 of the RTI Act the
PMO should have the information available. He has also given written submissions particularly the
following:
“The Hon’ble Court observed that the restrictions should not be interpreted in a manner as to shadow the
very right itself. The denial of information must be based on “satisfactory reasons” that are reasonable
and articulated. The rights under the Act should receive a liberal interpretation, and the statutory
exemptions must be read narrowly. Relying on previous decisions of Supreme Court, the Hon’ble High
Court observed that “adopting different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
judicially mandated class of restr5iction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.
Further, the destruction of records, even if true, was in violations of s.4(1)(a) of the Act and the public
authority is obligated to collate the document for the applicant/appellant.
There is no pleading as to all the points sought, and the argument of the destruction of records pertains
only to point(a) of the information sought by the applicant.
Page 2 of 3
The respondent no. 1’s reliance on Record Retention Schedule of the Manual of Office Procedure issued
by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension is misplaced as S. 105.1 (d) does not exist,
and the Right to Information Act, pursuant to S.22 of the Act, overrides the destruction of record unless
the authority can demonstrate that an exception under Section 8(1) of the Act was applicable. In this case,
the information sought was not only recent, but pertaining to a matter that is sub judice before the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay (FA No. 37 of 2001).”
After discussions with the Appellant and the PIO it has been agreed that the PIO will provide the
following:
1- Copy of the PMO’s retention schedule of records.
2- There is a possibility that the information sought by the Appellant may be at the Cabinet
Secretariat. The PIO will transfer the RTI application to the Cabinet Secretariat who will respond
to the Appellant directly as per the RTI Act.
3- If any letters or emails have been sent by the PMO to any Ministries with the subject “Watch
Tower” or JEHOVAH’s Witnesses, in the context of FCRA the PIO will send attested
photocopies to the Appellant. If there are no such letters or emails the PIO will send a certificate
to the Appellant to that effect.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the information on points 1 & 3 as directed above to the
Appellant before 25 May 2011.
The PIO is also directed to transfer the RTI application alongwith a copy of this order to
the PIO of Cabinet Secretariat before 15 May 2011.
The PIO of Cabinet Secretariat will send the information to the Appellant as per the
provisions of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
09 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MS)
Page 3 of 3