A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about change in options provided in the answer key for the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar - CIC: Provide documentary proof that option A is the correct answer for Question No. 97

Appellant alleged false implication & victimization for wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service - PIO: Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, is a Confidential document and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Denial upheld

Opportunity of inspection of records was granted which the appellant did not avail - Respondent: Appellant’s dismissal case is in progress; He files RTI applications to know about the progress of his case - CIC: Grant another opportunity of inspection

Information specifying the dates on which the Presiding Officer was in attendance for hearings at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - CIC took an adverse view of the delay and cautioned the public authority to adhere to the timeline under RTI Act

CIC: Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief despite having indulged in bigamy - CIC referred the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration of lenient view taken in a serious matter like Bigamy

Answer sheets of CBSE Board exam - CIC: PIO is neither aware nor mentioned the dispatched date of their reply; Did not upload it along with his written submission which shows lackadaisical approach; Explanation called for along with the comments of FAA

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Appellant alleged false implication & victimization for wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service - PIO: Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, is a Confidential document and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Denial upheld

10 Apr, 2025

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

1. “Provide certified photocopies of the complete Manual of Departmental Security Instructions 1994.

2. Provide certified photocopies of all amendments made to the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions 1994, from its inception till the present date.”

The CPIO, IS-II Division, Cdn. Section, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 02.07.2024 replied as under:-

“2……..it is informed that the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions being a "confidential" document, is exempted under the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, information on the same or copy of the said document can not be provided.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.07.2024 stated as under:-

“2. Whereas the CPIO vide his reply dated 02.07.2024 informed the applicant that the information requested by him i.e. copy of Manual of Departmental Security Instruction is a Confidential Document and it is 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; of the RTI Act, 2005

3. Whereas, the Appellant has filed the First Appeal dated 07.07.2024 vide registration No. MHOME/A/E/24/00505 on the grounds that the he was provided incomplete, misleading or false information on his RTI application.

4. The matter was again looked into and it was found that the application was disposed of correctly as the CPIO as information requested by the applicant is exempted under Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 23.02.2025 has been received from the Appellant contending on the following points:

1. Misapplication of 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, 2005

2. False Implication and Victimization about his wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service relying on false, fabricated and vexatious allegations including alleged destruction of documents and use of false evidence.

3. Necessity of the Requested Information since its provisions are directly applicable to my case and are essential to establishing defense as stated in Point No. 2 before the Special Court.

The Appellant has also mentioned a precedent set by the CIC decision No.

CIC/WB/A/2009/000758 dated 14.08.2008, wherein the relevant excerpt are as under:

“I am directed to refer to your application dated 15th Jan, 2009-IS-II dated 28th Jan, 2009 on the above-mentioned subject and to state that the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, reviewed and amended from time to time, is a Confidential document and 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, 2005”.

Written submission dated 25.02.2025 has also been received from the CPIO, MHA reiterating the abovementioned response of the PIO and the FAA. The Respondent further stated the following:

(v) With regard to the matter related to Manual of Departmental Security Instructions (MoDSI), it is informed that the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions is a Confidential Document which was made with the help of the security agency.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the MoDSI is mandated to establish guidelines/instructions on handling of classified (Top Secret, Secret, Confidential) information available in Govt. organisations i.e. Ministries/Departments/Orgs/Offices etc. This document is solely for the purpose of reference for Central Govt. Ministries/Departments. The disclosure of MoDSI has nothing to do with any public interest.

The Appellant has submitted another written submission dated 02.03.2025 narrating his professional journey from a government servant to a public servant. The same is duly taken on record.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference

Respondent: Shri Piyush Singh – DLA was present during hearing. Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent justifying denial of information referring to the detailed written submission dated 25.02.2025.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent has furnished appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The written submission dated 25.02.2025 filed by the Respondent is found detailed and self explanatory as such. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO, MHA to send a copy of the written submission dated 25.02.2025 to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order.

Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane v. Ministry of Home Affairs, CIC/MHOME/A/2024/632039 ; Date of Decision : 04.03.2025

Appellant alleged false implication & victimization for wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service - PIO: Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, is a Confidential document and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Denial upheld

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.