CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi"

Jasmin Lane
5 years ago
Views:

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi File No. CIC/SM/C/2009/000405/LS (A.N. Prasad Vs- Indian Army) Date : The proceedings of the Commission dated 2 nd February, 2010 are reproduced below :- Complainant : Shri A.N. Prasad Public Authority : Indian Army (through Brig Ved Prakash) Date of Hearing : Dated of Interim Decision : Facts :- By his letter of 4 th October, 2008, the appellant had requested for information on 03 paras from the CPIO. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated followed by another letter dated The appellant has not filed appeal before first Appellate Authority and has filed this complaint before this Commission. 2. Heard on Appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. The appellant fairly submits that he has received the requisite information from the Public Authority in the intervening period. Nevertheless, he has one basic issue to raise in this connection and, that is, whether the CPIO has the legal authority to ask for proof of identity from the information seeker. It is his forceful plea that the law does not call upon and information seeker to establish his identity. He has relied on this Commission s decision in File No CIC/WB/C/2009/ dated (Chanderkant Yamuna Das Karira Vs- Vice President Secretariat) wherein the Vice President s Secretariat had prescribed a format for seeking information which called for information such as gender, date of birth, father s full name, mother s full name, proof of residence, etc. The Commission had taken the view that a bare minimum requirement for a citizen who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act is that he shall make a request in writing or through electronic means and no other information is required to be provided by him. However, this kind of information can be sought in cases where there is a reasonable doubt about the citizenship of the information seeker. In this view of the matter, the Commission had advised the Vice President s Secretariat to modify the format referred to above. Another case relied upon by him is File No CIC/SM/A/2009/ decided on (S.C. Das Vs- Bank of India) wherein another Bench of the Commission had

2 held that CPIO was not right in insisting on proof of the identity of the information seeker. In yet another case decided by another Bench of the Commission in File No CIC/MA/C/2009/00246 decided on (Bhaskar Jyoti Gogoi Vs- All India Limited), the Commission had held that denial of information merely on the ground that the appellant has not submitted his citizenship proof is unacceptable. 3. It is, thus, the forceful plea of the appellant that denial of information only on the ground that the information seeker has not been able to establish his identity as a citizen of India cannot be said to be in line with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, he fairly concedes that taking into consideration the sensitivity of the information purported to be disclosed, the Military authorities may ask for proof of citizenship, on a selective basis, as a matter of abundant caution. 4. On the other hand, Brig Ved Parkash would submit as follows :- (I) that the Army is insisting on proof of citizenship from the information seekers in line with section 3 of the RTI Act. According to him, section 3 provides that only a citizen of India shall have the right to seek information. In other words, a non-citizen does not have this right. (II) that the Armed Forces are holders of sensitive information and they have to take adequate precautions to ensure that it does not fall into hostile/undesirable hands, prejudicing the national security. (III) that it is not necessary that every information seeker should enclose with the RTI application a copy of the photo identity card as the people living in rural areas may not have such identity cards. However, if any of the following documents is enclosed with the RTI application, the Army will have no problem in supplying the requested information viz :- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) letter of the village Sarpanch to say that the information seeker is living in a particular village; letter of the Chairman of the Municipality; letter from a gazetted officer of Central or State Government to say that information seeker is resident of a particular place; letter from MLS/MP of the area; copy of the ration card issued by the competent authority; letter from any respectable person of the area to testify the bonafides of the information seeker alongwith a proof of his own identification; and copy of the driving licence etc. 5. Yet another point raised by the appellant is that as per Rule 3 notified by DoPT vide Notification dated , the RTI application is required to be accompanied by application fee of Rs 10/- by way of cash or Demand Draft or Bbanker s cheque payable to the Accounts Officer of the Army. However, as per Army website, the fee is to be deposited in favour of GSO-I of the Indian Army. Thus, there is apparent contradiction between the Rules framed by the DoPT and

3 the information put on the Army website. To this, Brig Ved Parkash would respond that GSO-I of the Indian Army is actually the Accounts Officer of the Army for RTI matters. However, he has no objection to clarify this position in the Army website. 6. The hearing has remained inconclusive. The matter is adjourned to at 1500 hrs. 2. As scheduled, the hearing is resumed today dated The Indian Army is represented by Col. A.K. Vyas and Maj R.N. Panhotra. Appellant is present alongwith Shri Rajiv Lochan Mahunta and Ms. Bhumika Nanda. 3. Col. Vyas would submit that as the Army is the holder of sensitive information, certain precautions are required to be taken before disclosure of information. It is his plea that as per section 3 of the RTI Act, only an Indian citizen can seek information and in this view of the matter, the CPIO is well within his rights to ascertain the citizenship of the information seeker. He cites a specific case in which the applicant had sought information about certain sensitive purchases made by an Armoured Regiment and, on verification, it was found that that person had never sought any information and somebody else had masqueraded for him. He would also submit that certain individuals are seeking personal informations about Army personnel concerning disciplinary proceedings etc. under fake names and, therefore, due care and caution has to be exercised by the CPIOs before making disclosures. He, therefore, fully justifies the stance of CPIOs to seek citizenship proof from the information seekers. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prasad produces a number of decisions of the Commission to reinforce his argument that the practice being followed by the CPIOs of the Army is not consistent with the provisions of law. The operative portions of these decisions are extracted below :- (I) File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/ decided on (Chanderkant Jamnadas Karira Vs- Vice President s Secretariat). A bare minimum requirement for a citizen who desires to obtain any information under this Act is that he shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or in Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. It is clear, therefore, that asking the applicants to declare any form of allegiance is ultra virus. For this reason, it is recommended that it is only in cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to the citizenship of the applicant that the public authority may seek proof of citizenship which, presumably, is the objective of the above clause. (II) File No. CIC/SM/A/2009/ decided on (S.C.Das Vs- Bank of India).

4 After hearing their submissions, we are of the view that CPIO was not right in insisting on a proof of identity and the Appellate Authority was not right in denying a number of information by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act. (III) File No. CIC/MA/C/2009/00246 decided on (Bhasker Jyoti Gogoi -Vs- Oil India Limited). A Public Authority is expected to disclose the information relating to the outcome of the process of selection of staff. In view of this, the denial of information merely on the ground that the appellant has not submitted his citizenship proof, is unacceptable. 5. Besides, Shri Prasad has also cited the decision dated of Meghalaya State Information Commission in File No. MIC/Complaint/21/2009/11 wherein the Commission has held as follows :- On the other hand, the Respondent PIO wanted proof of his Indian citizenship through such documents like caste certificate, EPIC, Nokma certificate of his permanent residence etc. Such requirements by the Respondent PIO are not in consonance with the provisions of Law. In fact, Section 6(2) of the RTI Act states that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting any information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. 6. Further more, Shri Prasad draws the Commission s attention to section 6(2) of the RTI Act which, according to him, does not require an information seeker to provide any information other than the personal details which may be necessary to contact him. He also repells the argument of Col. Vyas that the CPIO is empowered to seek proof of citizenship in terms of section 03 of the RTI Act. DECISION 7. No doubt, information can be sought only by an Indian citizen under section 3 of the RTI Act. It has, however, come to the notice of the Commission that apart from the CPIOs of the Armed Forces, CPIOs of certain civil organizations also are insisting on proof of citizenship. It is to be noted in the three decisions of the Commission cited above, there is concensus that proof of citizenship is not required to be given by the information seekers. The Meghalaya State Information Commission has also taken the same line on the ground that seeking this proof would be over-stretching the limits of law. However, it is to be noted that the Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing in as much as, notwithstanding the fact that sensitive information has been barred from disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, yet the residual information, at times, may be sensitive from security angle and this concern can not be totally disregarded. It is trite that under this Act, disclosure is the rule and non-disclosure, an exception. We can not lose sight of the fact that certain information seekers living in rural areas may not have any proof of their identity in any of the forms enumerated in para 4(III) of this

5 Commissions proceedings dated extracted above, let alone proof of citizenship. It may also be that some of them have proof in one of the forms referred to above but furnishing of such proof before the CPIOs may be cumbersome and may involve costs and delays. To deprive such individuals of their statutory rights would not be just, fair and equitable. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the concerns of the Armed Forces, we are of the opinion that the proof of citizenship is not required from an information seeker as a matter of principle. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, where the CPIOs, particularly of the Armed Forces, have a doubt about the citizenship of the information seeker, it is open to such CPIOs to seek proof of citizenship. The Commission directs that the CPIOs would exercise this option only in exceptional cases. 8. Yet another issue raised by the appellant concerns the acceptance of prescribed fee by the Army Authorities in terms of the Rules framed by the Central Government. To this, Col. Vyas would respond that the fee is being accepted by the Army authorities if the IPO is addressed to the Accounts Officer, RTI, located at Army Headquarters, New Delhi. The appellant suggests that this position should be clarified on the Army Web site. Col. Vyas assures the Commission that it would be done soon. 9. The matter is decided accordingly. Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) Central 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. (K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties : 1. Brig. Ved Parkash, CPIO, ADG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No. 4, IHQ of MoD(Army), New Delhi Shri A.N. Prasad, A-311, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi A-311, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi

Central Information Commission

Central Information Commission Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26180512 Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001608-SS Dated:6.1.2014