The New Indian Express: New Delhi: Monday, August 27, 2018.
Expenses
incurred on the security cover of BJP president Amit Shah cannot be disclosed,
the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held citing RTI Act exemption
clauses of "personal information" and "safety".
The
commission has denied the appeal of a petitioner who had also sought to know
the rules governing extension of security cover to a private individual and the
authorities, which foot the bill of such cover to a private individual.
The
application was filed by Deepak Juneja on July 5, 2014, when Shah was not a
member of the Rajya Sabha.
He had also
sought to know the list of people who have been given security by the
government.
The
information was denied by the Home Ministry citing Section 8(1)(g) that exempts
from disclosure information that would endanger the life or physical safety of
any person.
The ministry
had also cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that
is personal, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and is not linked to
any "public activity".
In its
previous order in the matter, the CIC had upheld denial of information as it
was not disclosed before Parliament.
Juneja
challenged the CIC order in the Delhi High Court where Justice Vibhu Bakhru set
aside the transparency panel's order stating that the commission was first
required to examine whether information sought by the petitioner was exempted
under clauses (g) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
It lobbed the
matter before the CIC again to consider private contentions in the light of the
exemption clauses of Section 8(1) of the act.
The
commission again heard Juneja and the Home Ministry in the matter.
Juneja
submitted that the grant of security cover to eminent persons under threat is
the duty of the state in cases where the beneficiary holds a high office as
they cannot perform their vital functions while reeling under threat,
Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad noted in the order.
However, the
appellant submits that defraying cost of elite Z+ security cover to private
persons must not be from the state exchequer, Azad pointed out.
"Amit
Shah, who happens to be the national president of the Bhartiya Janta Party
(BJP) has been granted Z+ security cover by the MHA since July 2014 despite him
not being holding any constitutional or statutory office," Juneja said,
adding that since it was public money he has the right to know.
The ministry
said the respondent's contention is that revelation of expenses incurred in
providing security cover would reveal the intricacies, and magnitude and rigour
of security cover.
It said rules
governing the entitlement of grant of security cover and process of threat
assessment among others are framed in consultation with central security
agencies, which are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, and disclosure
would nullify the exemptions.
"Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that the protectees are already facing the
highest level of threat and that is why they have been accorded with the
highest level of security cover," Azad, a former IB special director,
held.
He said
revelation of names of protectees if not adding on to the danger to their life
or physical safety would be counterproductive to the efficacy of security
cover.
The names of
private Z+ protectees are personal since they do not owe the security cover to
their public office but private position in life, the information commissioner
said.
"The
public eminence of the private person, threat perception and the potential harm
are key determinative factors while granting security cover," he said.
He said the
identity, specific threat perception analysis among other factors are personal
information of a protectee who does not hold a public office.
"The
right to know, in such a case, must make way for the right to privacy of the
individual and the efficiency of governance since the same furthers the concept
of 'practical regime' of the RTI as conceptualised in the preamble of the RTI
Act," Azad said.
He also cited
last year's Supreme Court order on Right to Privacy to buttress his argument.
On December
9, 2015, the list of protectees in political and judicial field was disclosed
in a Rajya Sabha question by the Home Ministry, hence making a further case for
not disclosing it, Azad said.