Cost of “Printing and associated cost” of Electoral Bond (EBs) was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Similar information has been provided earlier in connection with other RTI applications of the same appellant by the DEA; Denial by PIO (SPMCIL) is not acceptable
13 Jul, 2022Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding printing of Electoral Bond (EBs):
- Provide the total cost of “Printing and associated cost” which has been incurred / levied / worked-out by ISP.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 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; 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.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has been denied the information under Sec 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; 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 by the CPIO and the FAA too did not pass speaking orders but simply concurred with the CPIO’s reply. He also stated that what he has sought is partly in public domain already and he enclosed a link to ‘huffington post’ story wherein he referred to the correspondence exchanged between the Secretary DEA and the CMD of SPMCIL. He also quoted some figures of the cost of printing the EBs and the numbers as at the end of Feb. 2019. He reiterated that he is only seeking the printing cost and associated costs as this is done using taxpayer’s money and therefore, has larger public interest. He desired that the information be given and penalties be imposed on the concerned officers for causing delay in responding to his RTI application. The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply given on 05.03.2020 and the written submissions dated 06.05.2022. During the hearing, he again held that the information cannot be given being exempted.
Observations:
It is noted that the CPIO gave a timely reply, but denied the information treating it as exempted under Sec 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; 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. This denial was supported by stating that disclosure of sensitive information would adversely affect the economic interests of the country and would not serve any larger public interest. It is a fact that the FAA concurred with the reply and did not pass any speaking order as such.
It is noted that in response to another RTI application dated 19.02.2021 the CPIO/ Asst. Director from the Budget Division of DEA had vide letter dated 19.03.2021 provided a point wise reply wherein, inter alia, the total number of EBs printed till the date of reply and the amount levied to the Government was provided. Another such reply was given to yet another RTI, vide the DEA’s letter dated 19.11.2021.
The CPIO vide letter dated 06.05.2022 reiterated his stand that the information cannot be given, quoting the provisions of Sec 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; 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. The Commission noted that similar information has been provided earlier in connection with other RTI applications of the same appellant, and this was provided by the DEA, which included the number of EBs and the cost of printing with associated costs for a particular period. Therefore, the denial by the CPIO of SPMCIL is not acceptable as such information has been provided in the past by the Ministry itself without referring to any exemption under the RTI Act. The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide the sought for information.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the information as sought for in the RTI application within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.) v. India Security Press (ISP) in File no.: CIC/ISPNR/A/2020/669411, Date of Decision: 16/06/2022