The Wire: New Delhi: Saturday, June 02, 2018.
The director
of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), who is also the council’s
central public information officer, has been pulled up by the Central
Information Commission for refusing to provide copies, sought under the Right
to Information Act, of a manuscript submitted by historian Arjun Dev.
ICHR had said
that the manuscript pertained to the Bengal riots and this information was
“confidential and sensitive information”. However, the panel discovered that
“the information sought pertained to issues relating to the draft manuscript
relating to “Towards Freedom- Documents on India’s Freedom Struggle”, 1941,”
and noted that “being a matter relating to India’s freedom struggle, the
Commission finds no reason as to how the disclosure of information can
prejudice/ affect anyone’s interest rather disclosure of information would
serve the larger public interest.”
In his
complaint, the appellant, Neeraj Sharma, had stated that he had sought
information on ten points regarding the daily progress report on the manuscript
submitted by Dev, including the date on which the submission reached the
office, the period for which it stayed with the officer, action taken thereon,
name and designation of officers supposed to take action on the submission,
date by which the manuscript had to be printed and issues related thereto.
On not
getting a response from the CPIO, Sharma had approached the first appellate
authority. He was subsequently allowed inspection of the records on December 4,
2017. However, his request for copies of the records was turned down.
During the
hearing in the CIC, Sharma asked for all the information to be disclosed and
the imposition of a penalty on the CPIO for the delay, which he said amounted
to “total disrespect and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005”. He
also charged that the public authority displayed a “very casual and careless
approach” towards the implementation of the Act.
In his recent
order directing the release of the information within 15 days, central
information commissioner Bimal Julka refused to be drawn by the ICHR official’s
stance that “as per their research funding rules, the identity of the experts
was classified as confidential and sensitive information which could not be disclosed”.
ICHR felt
the manuscript pertained to the Bengal riots of 1940s
Moreover, he
also recorded that “it was conveyed that the manuscript regarding which the
information was sought related to sensitive issue of Bengal Riots of 1941 and
therefore, any further disclosure of information was not desirable.”
Julka said
when the ICHR officials were asked whether the approval of the competent
authority was obtained for non-disclosure of information, the CPIO had only
submitted that “this was just a thought process in the organisation”.
In fact, he
said that when specifically asked by the CIC if they had received any
instructions or directions from the competent authority or if the Ministry of
Home Affairs had objected to the disclosure of information, the ICHR officials
had replied in the negative.
‘Onus on
CPIO to prove that denial of information was justified’
The
information commissioner observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5)
of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that the
denial of a request was justified is on the CPIO. He, however, added that
neither the two officials who were present during the hearing as respondents
nor the CPIO could “justify their position as to how the disclosure of
information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under
Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005”.
Moreover,
Julka also said that as per the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act,
2005, if a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO needs to
communicate the reasons for it.
‘No reason
for non-disclosure as matter pertains to freedom struggle’
The
information commissioner further noted that “being a matter relating to India’s
freedom struggle, the Commission finds no reason as to how the disclosure of
information can prejudice/affect anyone’s interest rather disclosure of information
would serve the larger public interest”.
To deny
information under any of the exemptions mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the
RTI Act, 2005, Julka said the respondent was “required to provide justification
or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed”. In this regard, he
referred to the decision of the Delhi high court in the matter of Deputy
Commissioner of Police vs D.K. Sharma. The court had held that it was “inclined
to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the
information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a
justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1)
of the RTI Act”.
ICHR told
to familiarise officials with RTI Act
Upon hearing
both sides, the information commissioner, apart from ordering the release of
information, also cautioned ICHR officials to “exercise due care in future to
ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI
applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under
Section 20 shall be initiated”.
The CIC also
instructed ICHR to “convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitise,
familiarise and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions
of the RTI Act, 2005 for the effective discharge of its duties and
responsibilities”.
Note: An
earlier version of this article said that the manuscript was about the Bengal
riots of the 1940s. However, that is only the ICHR’s claim. The CIC has said
the manuscript is about the freedom struggle.
.JPG)
.JPG)
