India Today: New Delhi: Wednesday,
September 28, 2016.
The CIC today
directed the Navy to disclose the Board of Inquiry proceedings into the death
of Lt Cdr Rahul Nair during an airshow in 2010,while admonishing its official
for "cavalier attitude" in preparing its submission.
In stern
observations, Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha, who rejected the
plea for exemption on grounds of national security, said it appears "that
attempt has been made to protect the interest of defaulters and that certainly
does not outweigh the interest of the soldier who has lost his life in such an accident".
Sinha
questioned how the Navy, while objecting to the disclosure of inquiry
proceedings, court resort to reproducing "verbatim" the previous
submissions by other CPIOs and comments of Defence Ministry in separate cases.
Navy which
was objecting to the disclosure of proceedings on the grounds of national
security has used comments of Defence Ministry and Indian Air Force in separate
cases without quoting, Sinha said.
"...the
phrase Air Force has been replaced by Indian Navy in all such instances. This
demonstrates cavalier attitude of the CPIO in preparing the counter
submissions. CPIO has even ignored the fact that, submissions in the
aforementioned case were given in regard of the Indian Air Force and its entire
fleet of transport since the year 1990...," Sinha said.
The
Information Commissioner pointed out that in the said case it is a specific
accident that happened at a flying display event organised by Civil Aviation
Ministry to mark recognition of Indian civil aviation sector.
The case
relates to plea of Cdr R M Nair who wanted to know the circumstances of the
tragic accident, and its board of inquiry records, which led to the death of
his son Rahul during the air show in which he was performing in a Kiran MK-II
aircraft.
But Navy
rejected it citing national security as a reason and section 8(1)(a) of the RTI
Act which exempts disclosure of such information.
"National
security is a ground which has to be corroborated with tenable indicators of
compromise; the phrase National Security per se is not an explanation. Section
8(1)(a) of the Act has to be scrutinised well before its application and there
is no singular rule to do the same," Sinha, a former intelligence officer,
said.
He said the
case relates to one aircraft the inventory of which has been completely
withdrawn from the Navy.
Sinha said it
is amply clear that disclosure of operational preparedness vis-a-vis an
aircraft which is no longer brought in action by the Navy should not have any
bearing on national security or any conceivable effect on the operation
strategies of the force.
"Application
of 8(1)(a) is rejected as prima-facie it appears that attempt has been made to
protect the interest of defaulters and that certainly does not outweigh the
interest of the soldier who has lost his life in such an accident," Sinha
said.
He said CPIO
should keep in mind that a mere claim of exemption under any of the provisions
of section eight or nine of the RTI Act will not absolve the public authority
of its responsibility to further the cause of transparency, the premise on
which the RTI Act was perceived.
The
Information Commissioner directed the Navy to provide a copy of Board of
Inquiry proceedings as well as all available, related and connected documents
to the air crash as sought in RTI application.
.JPG)
.JPG)
