Information pertaining to printing of new Rs. 500 and Rs. 2000 notes was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Respondent had made an error of judgement, but the due information was provided to the appellant subsequently - CIC: No further intervention is required
12 Dec, 2018O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, seeking information on nineteen points pertaining to printing of new Rs. 500 and Rs.2000 notes, including, inter-alia, (i) date(s) of inviting tender(s) to purchase the paper for the purpose of printing new notes of value of Rs. 500 and Rs. 2000 and copy of the tender letter(s)/notification(s), (ii) date(s) and the name(s) of the company(ies)/firm(s) who submitted the tender for supply of paper for printing of new notes of value of Rs.500 and Rs.2000 with verified documentary evidences, and (iii) tendered rates of the respective firm(s)/ company(ies) and the accepted rates with documentary evidences.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that information sought has been denied 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; of the RTI Act by the CPIO, Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd, Bangalore to whom his RTI application has been transferred by the CPIO, RBI, Central Office, Mumbai. The appellant stated that a Manager of Reserve Bank of India refused his first appeal on the plea that RBI is not the nodal agency for implementation of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information at the earliest possible Hearing on 10.09.2018:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri P. Willson, DGM and CPIO, Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd., Bangalore attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent requested the Commission to grant him some more time to submit his written submissions in the matter.
Interim Decision:
5. The Commission considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 20.11.2018 at 10.30 am
Hearing on 03.12.2018:
6. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri P. Willson, DGM and CPIO, Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd., Bangalore attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
7. The respondent submitted that the appellant vide his RTI application dated 21.01.2107 had sought information regarding, inter-alia, the security papers and inks used for printing new design of Rs. 500 and Rs. 2000 currency notes, tenders floated, the number of new notes printed up to 15.01.2017 and the amount paid to the firms/companies for transportation of the new printed currency notes to the Banks till 15.01.2017 along with the documentary evidence. He added that the CPIO vide reply dated 02.03.2017 denied the disclosure of the information sought 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; of the RTI Act. The respondent explained that the very nature of currency printing and allied activities call for utmost exclusivity and confidentiality as such vital information pertaining to overt and covert features of the Indian banknote, its raw material, printing, stocking, transport details of the printed notes, etc., cannot be shared with the public at large, lest this result in proliferation of counterfeit currency and economic chaos. Thus, till the notes are handed over to the RBI and subsequently circulated to various Banks, the printing process of currency notes is a highly confidential activity. Moreover, the names of the companies participating in the process is also not shared with the general public, since the disclosure of the desired information would prejudicially affect the economic interests of the State. Nonetheless, the appellant has been provided the dates of inviting tender to purchase the appear, ink, etc., as sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the RTI application, vide letter dated 19.09.2018.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the respondent had due to an error of judgement had inferred that as the matter pertained to a highly confidential activity, the information sought for is exempted from disclosure 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; of the RTI Act. However, subsequently due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent vide letter dated 19.09.2018. In view of this, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: Devendra Kumar Dixit v. CPIO: Bhartiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd., Bangalore in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/135279, Date: 04.12.2018