An under trial for terrorist activities was denied the copies of bare act and rules on the apprehension that he could misuse provided information in some other context - CIC: no national security involved; provide the information on payment of fees
1. Vide RTI application dated 24.01.2011 the appellant has sought information on 3 (a) (1 to 4), (b), (c) (1 to 12), (d) (1 to 11) issues as contained in his RTI Application.
2. CPIO interim reply dated 24.02.2011 has given the information to the appellant.
3. The first appeal was filed on 20.04.2011 as the desired information was not provided by the CPIO.
4. Vide Order dated 18.05.2011; FAA directed to the CPIO to transfer RTI application to all concerned department.
5. CPIO again reply on dated 05.08.2011 stated that information sought in para no. 3 (c) cannot be supplied in the interest of Nation.
6. On dated 11.08.2011 a letter sent to the CPIO regarding certified copy of Citizenship.
7. On dated 16.08.2011 a letter was sent to the director general of police by FAA
8. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 16.11.2011 are contained in the Memorandum of appeal.
Appellant opted to be absent being under judicial custody in Mumbai Central Jail.
Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
It is to be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 24.01.2011, sought some information from the respondents on the issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 24.02.2011, denied the required information to the appellant on all the issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 20.04.2011 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 18.05.2011, directed the CPIO to transfer RTI application to all concerned department. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission. As per the statement of Sh. Dalal, the appellant was denied the information only on the apprehension that appellant could miss use the provided information in some other context, since, the appellant has been in the Mumbai Central Jail under some serious and terrorist activities. In other words, the appellant is an under trial prisoner. Further, when ……2 -2- Sh. Dalal was asked to explain the national security involved in supplying the copies of Bare- Act of some State Acts to the appellant, as asked for vide his RTI application (supra). On this very aspect he failed to explain. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant is a under trial prisoner and accused of terrorist activities committed on the soil of India and it is also quite clear that he is an Indian citizen. As such as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005, every Indian citizen is legally entitled to have the requested information, if not exempted under Section 8, 11 & 24 of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 24.01.2011, PIO’s response dated 24.02.2011, FAA’s order dated 18.05.2011, PIO’s subsequent letter dated 05.08.2011 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal and the Commission is of the considered view that the appellant is legally entitled the requested information i.e. Bare-Acts of the State Acts and copies of Rules, as requested for, subject to condition that the appellant may be asked to pay the reasonable cost of the Bare-Acts and Rules, to be so provided. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the Bare-Acts of the State Acts and copies of Rules as asked for, available in the office of respondents, to the appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. Subject to the above observation, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Citation: Shri. Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. Department of Publication in File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004108/KY