Copy of the Finding, Opinion, and Directions of the Court of Inquiry regarding recruitment rally of 114 Infantry Battalion (TA) sought - CIC: CoI is conducted for internal collection of facts and not for public dissemination; Revisit the RTI application

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“1. Your kind attention is drawn to the Court of Inquiry convened vide convening order dated 08 February 2020 pertaining to case file number 0101/STA/Rect/A of Station Headquarters, Fatehgarh, Uttar Pradesh for the purposes of investigating the irregularities during the recruitment rally of 114 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), JAT held at Fatehgarh, Uttar Pradesh from 29 January 2019 to 09 February 2019, which was conducted from 27 July 2019 to 08 August 2019 at The Rajput Regimental Centre.

2. Vide paragraph 2 of The Sikh Light Infantry Regimental Centre letter bearing reference number 1004/AG dated 11 February 2022, an uncertified copy of the said Court of Inquiry has been provided to the undersigned under Army Rule - 184(2) less Finding, Opinion and Directions.

3. Under section 6 of The Right to Information Act, 2005, the undersigned requests the Public Information Officer (PIO) to kindly provide the undersigned with a copy of Finding, Opinion and Directions on the Court of Inquiry convened vide convening order dated 08 February 2020 pertaining to case file number 0101/STA/Rect/A of Station Headquarters, Fatehgarh, Uttar Pradesh. The said information may please be furnished to the undersigned at the address quoted below:”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2023 stating as under:

“Under the provision of para 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 there is no obligation to give information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.07.2023, held as under.

“Your prayer for a copy of finding and opinion of C of I pertaining to case is herein rejected as the information sought is exempted from the disclosure under RTI Act 2005 vide section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Act.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jha, Adv. appeared in person on behalf of the appellant.

Respondent: Shri Parag Sharma, CPIO, appeared through video conference.

The appellant's counsel, Shri Sanjay Jha, Advocate, submitted that despite filing the RTI request, the information sought was not provided. He further submitted that several developments occurred after filing the appeal, including the appellant’s discharge from service following a court-martial. He requested additional time to file a detailed written submission outlining his legal arguments.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was associated in the court-martial proceedings and the trial was ongoing, and disclosure would have impacted the proceedings. Therefore, the information was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent apprised the Commission that copies of statements of witnesses and relevant annexures had already been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought a copy of the Finding, Opinion, and Directions of the Court of Inquiry convened on 08 February 2020 regarding the recruitment rally of 114 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), JAT held at Fatehgarh, Uttar Pradesh.

The counsel of the appellant sought time to file a detailed written submission explaining complete facts and arguments in his behalf as several incident happened after filing of the instant appeal. The request was acceded to and four days’ time were given to file a detailed written submission and thereafter, the respondents were also given opportunity to file counter submissions, if any, within a week from the date of receipt of written submission from the appellant. Both the parties exchanged their email ids and assured to provide the written submissions/counter submissions within time on the web portal of the Commission. However, as per the records as on date neither the counsel of the appellant nor the respondent have filed any written submission before the Commission.

The Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005, allows denial of information if disclosure would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. In this case, the Court of Inquiry (CoI) led to disciplinary proceedings, including the court-martial of the appellant. During the court partial all relied upon documents have been provided to the appellant. Although the court-martial has concluded, releasing the Findings, Opinion, and Directions of CoI may still affect potential legal challenges, appeals, or related investigations.

The Commission is of the view that a Court of Inquiry in the military is conducted for internal collection of facts and is not meant for public dissemination. The findings are shared only with relevant military authorities, and disclosure could compromise military protocols and internal disciplinary mechanisms. There is no demonstrated larger public interest that overrides this fiduciary protection. Moreover, the appellant got opportunity to defend himself during the court martial proceedings.

Further, perusal of the records reveal that the respondents have not justified reasons for denial of the information sought by the appellant, they simply claimed exemptions under Sections 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.

Based on the above analysis and observations, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent should ensure that the exemption, if claimed, is properly justified under the provisions of the RTI Act duly referencing the ongoing implications for county’s security.

The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Major Chandra Kant Joshi v. Station HQ Fatehgarh, C/o. 56 APO, CIC/DPTMA/A/2023/635684; Date of Decision : 28.03.2025