Central Information Commission

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Web: Tel No: Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/ SS Dated: Name of the Complainant: Name of the Public Authority: Ms. Teesta Setalvad Ministry of Defence Date of Hearing: ORDER 1. The appellant was represented by Ms Aparna Bhat. The respondent was represented by Shri R.K Suman (Director, MHA), Shri A Rajiv (CPIO, HQ/MOD), Lt. Col GS Gill (54 Div), Lt. Col Pramod Kumar (91 Bdc) and Maj P Nagaraj (GSO-I). 2. The present matter is being heard in continuation of the interim order dated wherein following directions were passed: 10. On consideration of the submissions above and perused the records, the Commission notes that the information in question (i.e. report on Operation Aman) is admittedly not held by the present Respondents viz., 91 Infantry Brigade and that the Respondents are also not aware of the whereabouts of this information. 11. In the circumstances above, it is necessary to first identify the holder of the information in question, and to know his view on disclosure of the same. For this purpose, the matter is hereby

2 adjourned to 11 th December, 2013 at 3:15 p.m with a direction that the CPIO, Ministry of Defence; the CPIO, Army Headquarters; and the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security) Division shall file a written submission before the Commission on the present issue one week before the date of hearing, and shall also be present on the scheduled date of hearing. The other parties to the case shall also be present on scheduled date of hearing. 3. The respondent from IHQ of MOD (Army) has filed the following written submissions dated in pursuance of the interim order of the Commission dated : 1. As per the directions of the Hon ble Information Commissioner, all efforts were made to identify the custodian of OP AMAN REPORT and to ascertain its disclosure status with various agencies/branches with this HQ and different formations who might have been connected to the issue. The agencies approached were as under: a) PIO, Headquarters Southern Comd. b) PIO, HQ 54 Infantry Division c) PIO,, HQ 91 Inf Bde d) Military Operations Directorate, IHQ of MOD (Army) 2. As has been intimated by them, none of the agencies are in possession of a report titled OP AMAN REPORT or any REPORT on OP AMAN. The only document pertaining to OP AMAN is the Internal Security Diary held with HQ 91 Inf Bde which has already been intimated to the Hon ble Information Commissioner on the day of hearing i.e. 30 Oct Though the appellant has already made it clear that she was not looking for the Internal Security Diary,, however, as has been submitted before, the Internal Security Diary on OP AMAN held by 91 Inf Bde is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act since it brings out methodology of conducting IS duties and also the deployment pattern of Indian Army, which if disclosed to the

3 public, will prejudicially and adversely affect as well as jeopardize the conduct of such future operations by the Indian Army. 3. After having ascertained the facts from various agencies, it is submitted that there is no document titled OP AMAN REPORT or any REPORT on OP AMAN held by the agencies/branches, who have been contacted by the RTI Cell of IHQ of MoD (Army). 4. The Ministry of Home Affairs has also filed written submissions dated that no information is available with desk about Army Operation Aman. Ministry of Defence would be in better position to provide requisite information on the said operation. 5. During the hearing the appellant submits that when the army withdrew from the state of Gujrat, a report was drawn and that the appellant seeks to know the reasons why the army was withdrawn. The respondent submits that the role of the army was to aid the local government and that once the duty was over the army was withdrawn. The respondent maintains that the only document held by it in relation to this subject matter is the Internal Security Diary. The respondent also submits that if any document would exist, it would be maintained/destroyed as per the retention schedule for the documents. The appellant submits that if there was any document which existed and was destroyed as per the retention schedule, the same should also be provided. 6. The Commission is of the view that as per the RTI Act, only the document held in any form can be provided to the appellant. However, in view of the submissions of both the parties made before the Commission, the respondent is directed to ascertain if any any report of the Indian Army on Operation Aman is or was held by the army from the office of DGMO (Director General of Military Operations) and provide a categorical reply to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. Sushma Singh Chief Information Commissioner

4 Authenticated True Copy: (DC Singh) Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties: 1. Appellant: Ms Teesta Setalvad Nirant Bungalow Juhu Tara Road Mumbai Ms Aparna Bhat Advocate for the Appellant, Ms Teesta Setalvad 3/14 B Jangpura B New Delhi The Central Public Information Officer (RTI) RTI Cell, Headquarters, 91 Infantry Brigade, Pin The Appellate Authority (RTI) RTI Cell, Headquarters, 91 Infantry Brigade, Pin Central Public Information Officer (RTI) RTI Cell, ADG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No. 4, IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), Pin Central Public Information Officer (RTI) RTI Cell, Headquarters Southern Command Pune Central Public Information Officer (RTI)

5 RTI Cell, Headquarter 54 Infantry Division, Pin Central Public Information Officer (RTI) Under Secretary (GS-V), Ministry of Defence Department of Defence, Room No. 283-B, South Block, New Delhi Central Public Information Officer (RTI) & Director (Internal Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi