Information regarding preliminary report an Attack Helicopter (IA 2148) crash of Indian Army in an operational area near international border was denied to the former Commanding Officer u/s 8 (1) (e) & (h) - CIC: No public interest involved in disclosure
6 Mar, 2024Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.04.2022 seeking the following information:
“(a) Preliminary Report w.r.t. Helicopter IA 2148. A certified true copy of Preliminary Report w.r.t. Helicopter IA 2148 which was received by HQ Western Command on 15 Jun 2021 as quoted in para 1 of the brief of the case att with HQ Western Comd (DV) letter No 0337/WC/Gen/DV-2 (Manik Chopra) dt 10 Aug 2021. The above Preliminary Report is required along with following certificate: -
"It is certified that entire /complete Preliminary Report w.r.t Helicopter IA 2148 i.e. all its pages along with recommendation and opinion etc. have been provided.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.05.2022 stating as under:
“Application was processed with concerned agency. Inputs as sought is denied under section 8 (1) (e) & 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 08.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through NIC
Respondent: Vishal Das, Colonel Western Command and Kehsar Bahadur, Lieutenant CPIO, HQ, Western Command appeared through NIC.
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The appellant further submitted that he was the Commanding Officer of the aforesaid attack helicopter unit when the incident took place. A court of inquiry was initiated on the orders of Chief of the Army Staff to investigate the circumstances in which the accident occurred. He stated that as per the laid down procedure, before proceeding with the detailed investigation, the court was required to submit a Preliminary Report to examine the immediate interim remedial measures required, if any.
The appellant pleaded that there had been a wilful attempt from Maj Gen Devendra Sharma (MGGS), Brig Sameer Thakkar (Brig Avn) and Col Sarvesh Yadav (Col DV) of taking advantage of their position/ appointment wherein they arranged a copy of Preliminary Report (out of the channel), thereafter misguided the Army Commander (Lt Gen RP Singh) and used it to attach and subsequently post out him (appellant) without providing a copy of this report to defend himself as per the provisions of natural justice. It was further informed that process /requirement of the Preliminary Report had already been completed, based on which he was attached, thereafter, posted. The appellant had relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 9223/2019 titled Brig LI Singh vs UoI and Ors. The Appellant has contended that in the subject case, the Hon'ble the Supreme Court had set aside the Court of Inquiry proceedings since the copy of the Preliminary Report was not provided to the appellant.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertained to crash of an Attack Helicopter (IA 2148) of Indian Army on 25 January 2021 in a highly sensitive operational area near international border. The Appellant was the Commanding Officer of the said attack helicopter unit when the incident took place. The respondent further submitted that a Court of Inquiry was initiated on the orders of Chief of the Army Staff to investigate the circumstances in which the accident occurred.
As regards the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 9223/2019 titled Brig LI Singh vs Uol and Ors., the respondent submitted that the appellant had misled the Commission by not disclosing the complete facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment ibid was not applicable to the case of the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, in the case of Brig LI Singh, the preliminary report was with reference to various allegations against the said officer, whereas, in the instant case the Preliminary Report was not against the appellant but was only forwarded initial information in the incident of crash of the Attack Helicopter suggesting remedial measures. Secondly, in the case of Brig LI Singh, the Court of Inquiry was ordered based on the Preliminary Report and therefore, not providing the said preliminary report to the delinquent officer had caused prejudice to him in preparing his defence. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the said Court of Inquiry. In the instant case, the Court of Inquiry was not based on the Preliminary Report.
The respondent stated that purpose of the Preliminary Report in the instant case was limited to identify any immediate concerns relating to the safe operation of the attack helicopters and recommend precautionary measures to arrest similar occurrences in the highly active operational area, and the same had no relevance to either investigation by the court of Inquiry in the matter or subsequent departmental action against the appellant. For the above reasons, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 9223/2019 titled Brig LI Singh vs UoI and Ors, was not applicable to the case of the appellant.
In addition to the above, the respondent submitted that preliminary report contained highly confidential Information of the crash of the Attack Helicopter of the Indian Army at highly active operational Area near the International Border and therefore, the communication of the said report to any person not authorized, may prejudice the National Security and also adversely affect the war preparedness of the Indian Army. Therefore, they stated that information sought was denied to the appellant. It was also submitted that the information sought was held with their Headquarters Western Command in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the security of the state and no public interest was involved in the request of the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the appellant sought information regarding crash of an Attack Helicopter (IA 2148) of Indian Army on 25 January 2021 in a highly sensitive operational area near international border. The respondent vide letter dated 23.05.2022 denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) & (h) of the RTI Act. The appellant during the hearing pleaded that he was the commanding officer at the time of incident, and he was show caused for that incident, therefore, he was entitled for the information sought. The respondent during the hearing submitted that preliminary report contained highly confidential Information of the crash of the Attack Helicopter of the Indian Army at highly active operational Area near the International Border and therefore, the communication of the said report to any person not authorized, may prejudice the National Security and also adversely affect the war preparedness of the Indian Army.
Besides, the respondent submitted that information sought was held with their Headquarters Western Command in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the security of the state. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information. Further, the case referred by the appellant during the hearing was distinguishable and not applicable in this case as facts of the case referred was totally different from the present one.
The Commission finds that reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provision of the RTI Act and interference from the Commission is not required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Manik Chopra v. Western Command, CIC/IARMY/A/2022/147250; Date of Decision : 19-02-2024