Copy of plaint filed by Embassy of USA in India on instructions from the US Department of Justice for extradition of Dr PS Prasad was denied u/s 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(h) – CIC: Appellant should seek information from the court under its own procedure
27 Aug, 2013Copy of plaint filed by Embassy of USA in India on instructions from the US Department of Justice for the extradition of Dr PS Prasad, a fugitive from the USA, was denied u/s 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; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; - information sought is part of the judicial record of a court - CIC: Appellant should seek information from the court under its own procedure
ORDER
1. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought a copy of the plaint filed by the Embassy of the United States of America in India on instructions from the US Department of Justice for the extradition of Dr PS Prasad, a fugitive from the USA, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi who had passed an order in this case on 7 May 2002. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information by claiming exemption under both 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; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the ground that it would not only prejudicially affect the relationship with the foreign state but would also impede the process of investigation, apprehension and prosecution of an offender. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had agreed with the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had initially requested the court to give the information to him under RTI but his application had been transferred to the MEA. However, the respondent did not agree with this claim; he submitted that the MEA had directly received the RTI application from the Appellant himself and not on transfer. The Appellant also stated that since the information was about a fugitive from a foreign country, it should be provided to him. The respondent reiterated the stand taken by the CPIO
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We tend to agree with the decision of the Appellate Authority in this case. The information sought is part of the judicial record of a court. There is a specific procedure laid down by the courts for providing certified copies of the judicial records including the plaint filed by any applicant and citizens wanting such judicial records have to follow that procedure and not hope to get it under RTI. Therefore, the Appellant should seek this information from the relevant court under its own procedure. Apart from this, the desired information also relates to a plaint filed by the Embassy of the United States of America in India. Even if the MEA is holding this information, it cannot be expected to disclose it, if, in its opinion, this would prejudicially affect India's relationship with the US.
4. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. D V Sankara Rao v. Ministry of External Affairs in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000415