The Wire: New Delhi: Monday, March
06, 2017.
The Central
Information Commission continues to deny information pertaining to prime
minister Narendra Modi. In its latest order, the chief information commissioner
R.K. Mathur has upheld the decision of the chief public information officer of
the ministry of external affairs and refused information about applications
submitted by Modi for obtaining his first passport, its subsequent renewals and
later, the documents for his diplomatic passport.
Rejecting the
plea of the appellant, RTI activist G.M. Chauhan who is also the chairman of
the RTI cell of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee the CIC ruled that
while Chauhan had contended that “the information is in public interest”. As
per Section 8(1)(j), release of personal information is permitted only “if
larger public interest justifies it”.
In this
regard, Mathur observed that while “the appellant has stated that Shri Modi is
a public figure and that this information is already in public domain and hence
the information should be released. However, this argument in no way
establishes a larger public interest.” Therefore, he held that “the
action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application are,
therefore, found to be satisfactory.”
Incidentally,
this is the third time in the recent past that the Central Information
Commission has sought to protect the prime minister from divulging information.
In January
this year, in an order that ran contrary to his predecessor Satyananda Mishra’s
ruling that expenditure incurred on VVIP visits must be disclosed for larger
public interest, CIC Mathur had ruled that the procedure involved in
calculating the cost of foreign travel by the prime minister need not be
disclosed due to “important security concerns.”
And prior to
that, when central information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu had, in a bold
decision, directed Delhi University to disclose the records of Modi’s degree,
the charge of listening to matters pertaining to the human resource development
ministry was taken away from him. Subsequently, the order of Acharyulu which
sought to uphold transparency in public life was challenged in the Delhi high
court, which stayed it.
In the
immediate case, Chauhan had on May 10, 2016, sought information regarding
copies of applications submitted by Modi for obtaining his first passport, its
subsequent renewal or fresh applications for obtaining a diplomatic passport.
Not satisfied with the denial of information by the central public information
officer (CPIO), and later the first appellate authority (FAA), Chauhan had
filed a second appeal with the commission on September 2.
He had
submitted that from the body of order passed by the CPIO or appellate order
passed by FAA, nowhere had Modi treated the information requested for as
“confidential”.
Chauhan also
contended that it did not appear that the CPIO had given a notice to Modi
regarding the request. He therefore asserted that since no notice has been
issued, there was no question of treating it as a matter pertaining to
submission by a third party.
The
petitioner contended that it would also be wrong to say that the “information
requested for is not in public interest and its disclosure does not outweigh in
importance and it may harm or cause injury to the interest of Shri Narendra
Modi.”
He said,
“since the information requested for relates to the public life of the
erstwhile chief minister of Gujarat and present prime minister of India, the
disclosure is in public interest and it outweighs in importance any possible
harm or injury to the interest of such third party.”
In support of
his argument, the RTI activist had also cited some judgments. Chauhan also
stated that the procedure of Section 11 of the RTI Act was not followed by the
CPIO. He contended that even if the sought information is covered under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is a third party information, provisions of Section
11 have to be invoked. In response to this, the CPIO noted that the information
sought by the appellant was a third party information under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, and therefore it had been denied in view of a Delhi high court
judgment.
Clarifying on
the provisions of personal information covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
Act and Section 11 which deals with a CPIO’s powers, Mathur said, “It is
observed that the opening words of Section 11 are ‘CPIO…intends to disclose’,
which indicate that the procedure of Section 11 has to be followed only if CPIO
intends to disclose the third party information.”
Citing the
Delhi high court’s decision of February 19, 2014 in Union of India v. R
Jayachandran, which stated that,
“this court
is of the view that the proper approach to be adopted in cases where personal
information with regard to third parties is asked is first to determine whether
information sought falls under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the
Court/Tribunal reaches the conclusion that aforesaid exemption is not
attracted, then the third party procedure referred to in Section 11(1) of the RTI
Act must be followed before releasing the information.”
As such,
Mathur said in this case, “the sought for information is a third party
information and covered under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As brought out by
respondent in para 9 the CPIO/FAA did not intend to part with the information.
Hence, section 11 was not invoked.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
