Information regarding exodus of people from northeastern region was sought
17 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking some information regarding the exodus of people of the North East including the copies of the correspondence between the PMO and various social networking sites. He also wanted the report submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in connection with this. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the PMO had not entered into any correspondence with any social networking site on the subject. He denied the information regarding the report of the MHA by claiming exemption 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; of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had read about the initiative of the PMO in closing down some of these social networking sites in various news reports. He also referred to some media report and claimed that the Media Advisor to the PM had admitted having given such directions. The respondent submitted that the PMO did not have any such information to show that any correspondence had been made with any social networking site in this regard. Regarding the report of the MHA, the appellant pointed out that the PIO had not explained how the provisions of 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; would be attracted in this case.
View of CIC
The Commission held that it is necessary for the PIO to state how a particular provision is attracted to the information under question. Since the exemption provision cited in this case relates to information having implications for internal security and maintenance of law and order, the PIO should have made some analysis in this line while deciding not to disclose the information. The CIC further noted that the disclosure of the report of the MHA on the subject has the potential to rekindle the emotions and therefore it was understandable why the PMO decided not to disclose it. The best judge in such circumstances is the government itself and not the CIC. Regarding the correspondence among various ministries of the Central Government on the subject of the exodus of people from northeastern region is concerned, the CIC held that the PMO could not have provided the copies of any such correspondence as the appellant has not specified the names of any ministry or department.
Citation: Mr. Paras Nath Singh v. Prime Minister's Office in File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000235
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1370
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission