Appellant: Was there any request from Shri Ogyen Trinley Dorje, a claimant to the title of His Holiness the 17th Karmapa, seeking permission to visit Sikkim? - CIC: Disclosure would prejudicially affect the internal security & strategic interest of India
16 Aug, 2016ORDER
1. Shri Karma Tshutlim Bhutia filed an application dated 30.11.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on three points regarding
(i) whether there is any request from any corner including Shri Ogyen Trinley Dorje, a claimant to the title of His Holiness the 17th Karmapa seeking permission to allow him to visit Sikkim;
(ii) whether the Ministry entertained or granted any such permission to Shri Ogyen Trinley Dorje; and
(iii) copy of order, if any.
2 The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 02.06.2014 on the grounds that the respondent has wrongly denied the information sought by him under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Karma Tshutlim Bhutia was represented by Shri S.K. Pandey (Advocate). The respondents Shri J.P.N. Singh, CPIO (North East Division, MHA) and Smt. Anjana, Under Secretary (Visa), Foreigners Division, MHA were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided to him. He further submitted that no information regarding deliberations of the Cabinet Committee on security was sought and that only information as listed under the RTI application was sought. Hence, the information should be provided.
5. The respondents explained how disclosure of information sought by the appellant would adversely affect the internal security of the country as well as strategic interests of India. In view of this, the respondent submitted that disclosure of information sought by the appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act, hence, it cannot be provided to him.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant would prejudicially affect the internal security and strategic interest of India. Therefore, the Commission holds that the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act and hence cannot be provided.
7. With the above observation the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Karma Tshutlim Bhutia v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/000809/SB CIC/VS/A/2014/000810/SB