The Wire: New
Delhi: Saturday, 07 March 2020.
Not
only has the home ministry been cagey in sharing information on the CAA, it has
also violated rules by not replying within the time stipulated under the RTI
Act.
The
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) headed by Amit Shah has been reluctant to share
information on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the questions on
citizenship that have arisen around the Act. In several Right to Information
(RTI) applications filed by The Wire, the MHA has denied information on tenuous
grounds and in some cases delayed its response beyond the time stipulated under
the RTI Act, 2005.
For
instance, in an RTI application the reporters had filed on December 25, 2019,
we had asked for information pertaining to the process of passing of the CAA in
the parliament. Specifically, we asked for photocopies of all files, including
file notings, correspondences and records which were part of the process.
The
designated central public information officer B.C. Joshi responded in a letter
dated February 29, denying us the information. Joshi argued that India’s
relations with foreign states could be affected if this information is made
public.
“These
files are related to policy matters on grant of citizenship to foreign
nationals. Disclosure of such information may prejudicially affect relation
with foreign states. Hence disclosure of such information is exempt under section
8 (1) (a) of the RTI act, 2005,” the MHA wrote in its response.
The
MHA also sent the same response to a separate RTI filed by The Wire that sought
to inspect all files pertaining to the CAA’s approval by the Union Cabinet.
As
Akshay Deshmane of Huffpost has reported, he also received the same response in
the same words, when he sought to inspect all files relating to the CAA.
RTI
activist and former Information Commissioner at the Central Information
Commission, Shailesh Gandhi says that the issue is ‘dicey,’ arguing that the
information officer concerned must ‘explain how disclosure could affect our
relations with foreign countries.’
“The
PIO has not given any valid reasons showing that any harm could come to any
protected interest, whereas it is obvious that if citizens knew the contents of
the information based on which the cabinet took the decision, it would lead to
a better and meaningful democracy and which would indeed serve people’s needs,”
Gandhi said.
Similarly,
in a 2018 order, the Central Information Commissioner had rejected the
contention of the Department of Personnel and Training which sought an
exemption under Section 8 without elaborating on how the said exemption clause
can be invoked.
“Submissions
of the CPIO reproduced verbatim above appear incoherent and does not convey any
substantial justification for invoking Section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act,” the
information commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha wrote.
Further,
even if the Public Information Officer (PIO) has claimed exemption under
Section 8 (1) (a), she is duty bound to disclose information contained in the
files that are not exempt, while blackening out the ‘exempted’ portions.
M.
Sridhar Acharyulu who was also a former information commissioner at the Central
Information Commission and is now dean of law at Bennett University, said that
the PIO ought to have applied the ‘doctrine of separation’ and provided such
information that was not exempt under Section 8 (1) (a).
Section
10 of the RTI Act lays the ground for such scenarios when certain information
is exempt from disclosure. It says that the information can be provided
severing the part which is exempt.
“Where
a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation
to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which
does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act
and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt
information,” Section 10 of the RTI Act reads.
Also,
the MHA’s contention that the government of India would prefer not to
antagonise foreign countries seems to be at odds with the defence put forth by
several ministers of the government including home minister Shah and Prime
Minister Narendra Modi.
While
defending the CAA in January, Modi reprimanded opposition parties for not
speaking out against Pakistan and the alleged atrocities against minorities in
Pakistan. “Every countryman has a question as to why people don’t speak against
Pakistan but instead take out processions? Pakistan is founded on religious
grounds due to which atrocities on minorities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and
Christians have increased. But Congress and its allies don’t speak against
Pakistan,” he said.
He
also offered advice to citizens of India who have been protesting against the
CAA, and once again brought up Pakistan. “If you have to agitate, raise your
voice against the exploits of Pakistan in the last 70 years. Now the need is to
expose this action of Pakistan at the international level,” Modi said.
Shah
has also said, in relation to the CAA, that ‘crores of people were killed’ in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh on the basis of religion.
Alleging
that the number of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists in Pakistan and
Bangladesh has declined, Shah said, “Where have they gone? They were either
killed, converted or came to India as refugees. These blind people cannot see
that atrocities were committed on crores of people.”
Recently
the government of India also said that the CAA is an ‘internal matter of India’
and that ‘no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s
sovereignty.’ The ministry of external affairs was responding to UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights filing of an intervention application in the
Supreme Court of India in respect to the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act.
The
UN has said, on several occasions, that the CAA is fundamentally discriminatory
and violates commitments made by India under international law.
So,
on the one hand the government of India has sought to avoid foreign
intervention by arguing that the matter is internal, on the other, it continues
to deny information about the act and the process involved in its passing on
the grounds that such disclosure could ‘prejudicially affect relation with
foreign states.’
In
two other RTI applications filed by The Wire, the MHA has violated the time
limits under which the PIO is supposed to act on an RTI application.
We
had asked the MHA to provide information on the number of people from Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Bangladesh who have arrived in India fleeing religious
persecution. In another question we asked the number of long term visas that
have been issued to people of minority religions from these countries who have
fled religious persecution.
The
RTI application was filed on December 23, 2019. The MHA responded in a letter
dated February 4, 2020 and said that the ‘matter is more closely connected with
the bureau of immigration’ and transferred the RTI application to the BOI under
Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act.
Under
the act, if the PIO intends to transfer the application to another public
authority under Section 6 (3) of the act, the transfer must be made within five
days of the receipt of the application. That has clearly been violated in this
case.
The
Wire has filed first appeals in all the matters mentioned here.
.JPG)
.JPG)
