A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Information about the Mumbai blast - The area in respect of which information is sought has security implications, the judgment is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information

16 Aug, 2019

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia,

(i) a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case (11.07.2006, Mumbai) and

(ii) a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case (11.07.2006, Mumbai).

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO incorrectly denied information on point no. 1 of the RTI application 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; 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 and also not furnished information sought vide point no. 2 of the RTI application. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Hearing on 23.04.2019:

3. The appellant, Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri S.K. Chhikara, Deputy Secretary, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi was present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that he had sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case (11.07.2006, Mumbai). The appellant further submitted that the aforesaid report pertains to him, therefore, the same should be provided to him. However, the respondent had denied the information sought for 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; 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 appellant further stated that he had also sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case. The appellant added that the blast had killed more than 200 people and more than 900 were injured, however, the real accused had gone unpunished and innocent people like him have been convicted to death and therefore, by letting the actual criminals free, national security is jeopardized. The appellant emphasized that the disclosure of the information sought for would serve the purpose of larger public interest as the disclosure would ensure justice to the innocent. Hence, as per Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the RTI Act, the information sought for cannot be denied to him. In this regard, he also cited the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Yashwant Sinha & ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [W.P. (Cr.) No. 298 of 2019] dated 10.04.2019.

5. The respondent submitted that the report submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case pertains to prevention and combating terrorism in hinterland and status of investigation of a particular case. Hence, the information sought for is not in public interest. The respondent further submitted that report submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case is not available. The respondent, however, requested the Commission to grant him some more time to make further submissions in the matter.

Interim Decision:

6. The Commission considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 10.06.2019 at 12.20 PM.

Hearing on 10.06.2019:

7. The appellant, Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Secretary, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi was present in person.

8. The appellant reiterated his earlier submissions and requested to provide the information sought for by him.

9. The respondent submitted that the custodian of the information which is the State Govt. of Maharashtra has declined to provide the information to the appellant on the ground that the State Govt. has declared Anti-Terrorist Squad to be exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act by virtue of the powers conferred upon it under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The respondent, however, requested the Commission to grant him some more time to make additional submissions in the matter since he had recently joined as CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), MHA, New Delhi.

Interim Decision:

10. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 25.07.2019 at 12.30 PM.

Hearing on 25.07.2019:

11. The appellant, Shri Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Secretary, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Shri Anthony Steven, ACP, ATS were present in person.

12. The appellant reiterated his earlier submissions and requested to provide the information sought for by him. He also submitted that investigation in the matter was already completed and further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) of the CrPC, 1973 was not in progress.

13. The respondent submitted that investigation in the matter was ongoing since 15-20 accused including foreign nationals are yet to be arrested. Thus, due to the sensitivities involved in the matter, the disclosure of information was not warranted in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act besides being exempted under Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act since access of information by the public including the perpetrators of the offence can prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. Moreover, permission for further investigation u/s 173 (8) of the CrPC, 1973 had been sought from the Designated Court Constituted under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act- 1999 for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai.

14. The Commission instructed the respondent to expeditiously upload the documentary proof of complying with the procedure of Section 173 (8) on the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, to facilitate the Commission to arrive at a decision in the instant matter.

15. Subsequently, the respondent uploaded on the abovementioned link, a copy of the application dated 30.11.2006 placed before the Designated Court Constituted under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act- 1999 for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai wherein permission as contemplated under Section 173 (8) of the Cr. PC was sought to continue further investigation in the case even after filing of the charge sheet since investigation relating to the wanted accused and some other vital aspects was still incomplete. The respondent also enclosed a copy of the order in CR No. 05/2006 dated 30.11.2006 wherein the fact of submission of the aforementioned application filed u/s 173 (8) of the Cr. PC to continue further investigation and file supplementary chargesheet was recorded.

Decision:

16. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that appropriate response was provided to the appellant by the respondent.

17. In this context a reference is made to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 wherein in the context of an RTI application seeking Certified Copy of the letter written by the Chief Minister of J and K, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India and records pertaining to any action taken, it was held as under:

“7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The information sought pertains to a correspondence which emanated apparently from the Chief Minister of J and K, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India. Even according to the petitioner, the said letter pertains to the issue of deployment of defence forces in the State of J and K. There is no gain saying that J and K is a sugeneris State within the Union of India in respect of which the respondents would exchange information with State authorities from time having security implications. The background circumstances do point to the fact that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications. The judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other. In this particular case, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the information sought has security implications. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court would be slow to interfere with the decision arrived at in that behalf.”

18. Thus, keeping in view the sensitivities involved in the matter as also the factual position narrated by the respondent during the hearing specifically the plea of ongoing investigation and perceptible threat to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

19. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

20. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166137, Date 31.07.2019

Information about the Mumbai blast - The area in respect of which information is sought has security implications, the judgment is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.