Report of Board of Inquiry on the INS Sindhurakshak (S 63) Submarine for cause of blast was denied u/s 8(1)(a) & 8(1)(j) - CIC summoned the relevant files where findings of the Board of proceedings is recorded for an ‘in-camera’ hearing - Hearing on Oct 6
19 Sep, 2017Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copy of the Report of Board of Inquiry on the INS Sindhurakshak (S 63) Submarine.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing ON 30.08.2017:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Cdr-At- Arms Somnath Ghosh, PIO and Cdr Ajay Bhatia, IHQ of MoD(Navy) present in person.
Appellant stated that he has sought for this information in the capacity of being a tax payer of India who wishes to know the reasons behind the blast that occurred in INS Sindurakshak. He stated that he inferred from media reports that the cause for the blast was attributed to some human error which he wants to verify by seeking the copy of Board of Inquiry proceedings under RTI Act.
CPIO submitted that the information was denied 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; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Upon Commission’s instance, CPIO elaborated that the Board of Inquiry is a vast elaboration of the events which runs into almost 16 Volumes and entails description of the specifications of the Submarine; details of its deployment, where it was headed, why it was deployed and will even have sensitive details like missile fitting specifications. Disclosure of these details will be prejudicial to national security as similar class of submarines exist in present day which are used for deployment and if specifications are revealed, it will not be conducive to the strategic interest of the State. No explanation was advanced by the CPIO for exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. except for stating that it was their opinion that disclosure of the proceedings will not serve any larger public interest.
Appellant contended that he is not interested in knowing any specifications or details of deployment of the submarine, and believes that the findings of the inquiry can be extracted from the non-exempted parts of the proceedings and be provided to him.
CPIO submitted that although findings may exist in the proceedings, it cannot be severed as these findings will have elaborate inferences to the specifications and deployment of the submarine. It was also added that this class of submarines have been received under an International Treaty, so disclosure of its specifications can lead to International tribulations.
Interim Decision on 30.08.2017
In the facts of the case, Commission finds it appropriate to summon the relevant files where findings of the Board of proceedings is recorded for an ‘in-camera’ hearing to decide the suitability of Section 10 of the RTI Act in the matter.
Accordingly, Commission adjourns the hearing to 01.09.2017 at 11.00 am for final decision. CPIO is directed to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the in-camera hearing. Registry will ensure service of this order to Respondent by Dasti.
Proceedings of the hearing dated 01.09.2017
Commission received a request from the CPIO via email on 31.08.2017 to reschedule the in-camera hearing as he submits that the matter is under deliberation of concerned professional directorate at IHQ MoD (N) and he would require some more time to finalise their arguments. It was further requested that the hearing be scheduled after 05.09.2017.
Interim Decision –II on 15.09.2017
Commission accepts the request of the CPIO and directs him to appear before the bench on 06.10.2017 at 11.00 am along with the relevant files as per the stipulations of interim decision of 30.08.2017.
The order is reserved.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rahul Sehrawat v. Integrated HQ MoD(Navy) in File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2017/110171/SD, Date of Interim Decision-II: 15/09/2017