Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi vs Director (Judicial), Ministry Of … on 31 July, 2008

              CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
             Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00518 dated 22-3-2007
                      Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19

Appellant:          Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi
Respondent:         Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).


                                    ORDER

In our decision of 16-5-08 we had held as follows:

In the instant case, the then Minister (Home) has refused to
disclose information in Parliament on the ground that the
information happens to be a private one. What has been refused
to be disclosed in Parliament, if made public at this stage, may
be considered to be a breach of privilege.

Of course, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction and
would not choose to pass a verdict as to whether it will actually
amount to either breach of privilege or contempt of the
Parliament because it is for the Parliament to decide and
determine that. The Commission can only see and examine
whether the concerned Public Authority denying the information
has a prime facie apprehension as to whether disclosure of
information in the given case may amount to commission of
contempt or breach of privilege and if a prime facie case is so
made out, the Commission has to uphold the same.

Parliament may, however, examine the matter in the light of the
provisions of the Right to Information Act and the objectives that
this legislation intends to achieve of bringing transparency and
accountability in the working of all public authorities. In this case,
the Commission would like to make a reference, and to request
the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Shri Somnath Chatterjee
to consider the issue and decide as to whether it would be a
breach of privilege if the information, which has been refused to
be disclosed to Parliament by the Executive at one point of time,
is now disclosed to an applicant under the Right to Information
Act, 2005.

Needless to say, if eventually an order of disclosure of
information is issued after the matter of Parliamentary privilege
is decided by the Hon’ble Speaker, because it cannot be denied
that the information sought is with regard to a private property,
hence before disclosing any information on record in this regard
CPIO will still be required to give a written notice to the third
party i.e. the erstwhile Maharaja of Udaipur, of the request and
invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally,
regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and on

1
this basis take a decision on the disclosure of information
keeping in view that should the third party claim invasion of
privacy u/s 8(1)(j), the CPIO will have to take a considered
decision after keeping in view such objection, considering that
there is a public activity involved in this matter i.e. the accession
of the State to the Indian Union and also to the fact that more
than twenty years have expired since such accession.

The appellant has indeed contended that the information being
more than 20 years old must be disclosed under sub-section (3)
of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as
under:-

Section 8(3)
Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-

section (1), any information relating to any occurrence,
event or matter which has taken place, occurred or
happened twenty years before the date on which any
request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any
person making a request under that section

Provided that where any question arises as to the date
from which the said period of twenty years has to be
computed, the decision of the Central Government shall
be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this
Act

From the above, it is clear that the provisions of Section 8(3) are
subject to the provisions of Section 8(1) (c) and, as such, even if
the information relates to an incident or event which has taken
place, occurred or happened 20 years before, still if it is decided
that the disclosure amounts to the breach of privilege of
Parliament, it cannot be disclosed.”

Accordingly, we have received the following remarks from Dy.

Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Privilege & Ethics Branch dated 17-7-08 in
which he has submitted as follows:

“It has been observed that as per the communication of Director,
Judicial and CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 31st October
2007 addressed to the applicant, Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi,
“Saheliyon-Ki-Bari”, the property regarding which information
has been sought by the applicant, is a State Property. The
information south through USQ No. 655 in 1967 pertained to
private properties that remained with rulers at the time of
accession. The principle (that details of … private property of
the ruler should not be matter of public disclosure) on which
information was denied to Parliament, in reply to USQ 655 does
not, therefore, appear to be applicable to Saheliyon-Ki-Bari
which, as per the admission of the Government is a State
Property. It seems to be debatable whether provisions of

2
Section 8(1) (c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 may be
invoked under these circumstances.

Further the applicant, who desires this information in connection
with a case pending in a court has, in this application dated 9th
March 2007 to the CIC, categorically stated that if it is not
possible for the Government to disclose the information to him, it
may be made available directly to the court in which his case is
pending.

In the event of the Government acceding to the said request
made by the applicant vide his letter dated 9th March, 2007,
there would be no “public disclosure”.

This has the approval of Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha.”

From the above it is clear that the disclosure of information sought in
the present application will not, in the view of Speaker, Lok Sabha, breach the
exemption from disclosure granted u/s 8 (1) (c) CPIO Shri NN Perumal
Director MHA will now provide the information sought by appellant Shri
Basanti Lal Singhvi will now be disclosed to him within 20 days of the
date of receipt of this decision notice, allowing for 5 days for issue of
notice to the third party and a further 10 days for the third party to
respond.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Announced in open chamber on
st
31 July, 2008.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
31-7-2008

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.

(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
31-7-2008

3