Action taken by the GoI after 1947 to declare Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and CS Azad as martyrs were sought - PIO advised the appellant to visit the NAI on any working day to research & obtain the requisite information CIC upheld the order of PIO

Decision Dated 28.04.2016.

Date of Hearing : 17.03.2016/25.04.2016

ORDER

1. Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit filed an application dated 08.09.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), seeking information on three points, including

(i) photo copies of the documents of Government of India wherein the British Government had declared freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and Chandra Shekhar Azad as extremists and terrorists,

(ii) what action had been taken by the Government of India after 1947 to declare them as martyrs including copies of the related documents and

(iii) photo copies of the documents relating to declaring ‘Jana gana mana’ as National Anthem and ‘Vande Matrum’ as National song.

2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 28.11.2014 before the Commission on the ground that he has not been provided any information.

Hearing held on 17.03.2016:

3. The appellant and the CPIO, MHA, to whom the notice of hearing was issued, did not participate in the hearing despite notice.

Interim Decision:

4. The Commission observes that the RTI application dated 08.09.2014 was filed before the CPIO, MHA, New Delhi but the same was transferred to the CPIO, National Archives of India (NAI) on 22.09.2014. The Commission also observes that the appellant has filed his first appeal dated 22.10.2014 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), NAI.

5. The Commission directs the CPIO, NAI to be present before the Commission on the next date of hearing failing which the matter would be decided on the basis of available records. The case is adjourned to 25.04.2016 at 01.15 p.m.

Hearing on 25.04.2016:

6. The appellant Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Syed Farid Ahmad, CPIO and Assistant Director, NAI was present in person.

7. The respondent submitted that CIC in case no. CIC/BS/A/2013/000081/SS dated 11.03.2014 held that:

“10. Based on the above pronouncements, the three member Bench had advised the Appellant to pay the charges laid down for verification of details of PNR to obtain the information desired by him. In the light of the foregoing, we do not see any ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents, advising the Appellant to search their records to obtain the requisite information, in terms of the Public Records Act, 1993 and the Public Records Rules, 1997. We would advise the public authority to help the Appellant in narrowing down his search as much as possible, in the light of the details provided by him regarding the information which he needs, if and when he takes recourse to consulting the records of the Respondents in terms of their prescribed statutory mechanism”.

The respondent further submitted that the appellant was advised vide letter dated 10.11.2014 that he could visit the NAI on any working day to research the NAI records and to obtain requisite information in terms of Public Record Act, 1993. The appellant was also advised that the facilities as per Record Rules, 1977 would be made available to the appellant.

Decision:

8. The Commission observes that due information has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.

9. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/003847/SB