CIC is not aware of the contents of Dr. T Ramasami Committee report on revamping Agricultural Research and Development and it can’t be accessed, the denial of report upheld u/s 8(1)(a); Scope of RTI enquiry cannot be expanded at appeal stage
24 Jun, 2020Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a copy of the report of the Committee headed by former Secretary Department of Science and Technology, Dr. T Ramasami, on revamping Agricultural Research and Development in India, which was submitted to Govt. in October, 2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the order of the FAA as the FAA had denied the information while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI act stating that the T.Ramasami report is "confidential in nature" and its disclosure might be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of lndia, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state etc. He stated that there is no reasonable ground according to him for invoking Clause 8 (1) (a) because disclosure of the report is necessary in public interest as ICAR is slipping in agricultural research and has ceded ground to the private sector in most crops including cotton, maize, bajra and fruits and vegetables. The public should know why a premier Agricultural Research institution is not fully living up to its mandate. His other contention was that he wanted a copy of the report of the Peer Review Committee on the lndian Council of Agricultural Research rather than a copy of the report on revamping Agricultural Research and Development in India and he had clarified this by way of his first appeal and an email dated 26.10.2018. However, the CPIO had deliberately refused to provide this information to him.
The CPIO submitted that the report sought by the appellant in his original RTI application is still under examination and the contents of the report are highly confidential in nature, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act. She also submitted that the appellant had changed the title of the report after the RTI application was disposed of. At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that even if point of adjudication before the Commission is the report of revamping Agricultural Research then also, it is a report of 2017 and why it has not been finalized till date. All this shows that the organisation is trying to suppress the contents of the report from the general public.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant in his original RTI application had sought a copy of the report of the Committee headed by former Secretary Department of Science and Technology, Dr. T Ramasami, on revamping Agricultural Research and Development in India. After that, the appellant through an email dated 26.10.2018 and his first appeal changed the title of the report sought from “revamping Agricultural Research and Development in India” to the report of the “Peer Review Committee”. It is brought to the knowledge of the appellant that he cannot raise any additional query by way of his first appeal and consequent second appeal beyond the RTI application. He has to confine his relief to the contents of the original RTI application. Had it been the case that the appellant was unaware of the report altogether and did not know the title of the report, the case would have been different. In the present case, the information sought by the appellant in his original RTI application was related to the report of revamping Agricultural Research and Development in India on which the CPIO had given a reply and the FAA had passed a detailed order in respect of this report only. In a nutshell, the RTI application was disposed of by the FAA on its merits. Under such circumstance, the Commission does not find it appropriate to accept the plea of the appellant that he wanted a copy of the Peer Review Committee. An information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at the appeal stage. No disclosure can, therefore, be directed to be made in the context of the changed title of the report. The RTI Act does not provide any right to the appellant to change his query altogether. The Appellant, however, may file a fresh RTI application, if he so desires.
Now the limited question before the Commission is whether the denial of the desired information by the FAA under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act is proper or not. During the hearing, apart from other submissions, the CPIO submitted that the report of revamping has not been finalized yet and is still under examination. She further submitted that as a routine, as and when any report is finalized, that report is suo-motu uploaded on the website for general public and this report in particular is in its final stage and hence it cannot be disclosed and the FAA has passed a detailed order and has stated that the report submitted by Shri T. Ramasami, former Secretary, DST on revamping of ICAR is confidential in nature and is under examination. The information therefore, cannot be shared with the applicant in terms of Clause 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. Since the Commission is not aware of the contents of the report nor the same can be accessed by it as the report is still under consideration, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the FAA as it is expected that an officer of the rank of a Deputy Director General would have considered each and every aspect of the report while coming to a conclusion that the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act since he would be aware of the contents of the report and have expertise in the subject. Hence, the Commission does not find any scope for action in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission upholds the order of the FAA dated 14.11.2018 and does not find scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Bernard Vivian Fernandes v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research in Decision no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/170437/02693, Date of Decision: 22/01/2020