Reasons for suspension of Non Scheduled Operator’s Permit of a helicopter company was denied u/s 8(1)(a),(g),(h) and Second Schedule - CIC: disclosure would not amount to revelation of information relating to Central Security and Intelligence agencies
7 Dec, 2013Reasons for suspension of Non Scheduled Operator’s Permit of a helicopter company was denied u/s 8(1)(a),(g),(h) and Second Schedule (the file contains the inputs of the Central Security and Intelligence agencies) – CIC: It is MHA who has finally decided to withdraw the security clearance of the company – CIC: disclosure of reasons would not amount to revelation of information relating to Central Security and Intelligence agencies, provide the reason as available on records
ORDER
These two appeals (No. 373 and 379), filed by two different individuals, namely, Shri Raakesh D. Soni and Shri Ravinder Kumar Rishi (Appellants) respectively, were taken up for hearing on 17.10.2013. The Appellants were present through their counsel, Shri Balaji Subramanian, while the Respondents were represented by Shri Rakesh Mittal, Director (IS) and Shri Praveen Kumar, Dy. Comdt.
2. The Appellants through their RTI applications dated 29.05.2012 and 04.06.2012 (respectively) sought identical information in respect of suspension of Non Scheduled Operator’s Permit No. 08/1998 of a helicopter company, viz., Global Vectra Helicorp Limited (GVHL) consequent upon the withdrawal of Security Clearance by Ministry of Home Affairs. Shri Raakesh D. Soni is the Company Secretary of GVHL, while Shri Ravinder Kumar Rishi is an erstwhile Director of GVHL.
3. The CPIO vide his letters dated 27.06.2012 declined the disclosure of information to the Appellants on the ground that the information sought by the Appellants comes under section 8(1)(a), section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 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; and Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
4. Aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO, the Appellants field appeals before the Appellate Authority challenging the decision of the CPIO.
5. The Appellate Authority vide his order dated 28.09.2012 rejected the appeals of the Appellants, while recording that the “ground for denial of access to the information sought given by the CPIO basically is that the assessment of MHA and the file in which the assessment is made, primarily contains the inputs of the Central Security and Intelligence agencies which are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act as they are notified in the 2nd Schedule.”
6. The Appellants then filed the present appeals before the Commission challenging the denial of information by the Respondents.
7. The issue for consideration before the Commission in the present appeals is whether the reasons for withdrawal of Security Clearance by the MHA based on the ‘inputs’ of Central Security and Intelligence Agencies can be disclosed to the Appellants or not which the Respondents have claimed to be an information relating to an organization exempt from the purview of the RTI Act (except for the cases of allegation of corruption and human rights violations) within the meaning of Section 24 read with the second schedule of the RTI Act.
8. During the hearing, Respondents reiterate their stand that the reason for denial of the information in question to the Appellants is basically that the assessment of Ministry of Home Affairs and the file in which the assessment is made primarily contains the inputs of the Central Security and Intelligence agencies which are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act within the meaning of section 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act. It is thus their submission that providing the information in question (i.e. reasons for withdrawal of Security Clearance by the MHA) to the Appellants would amount to revelation of information / inputs in respect of the exempt organizations.
9. The Counsel for the Appellants refutes the contention of the Respondents and argues that the Appellants are not seeking the actual inputs from the Intelligence and Security Agencies. He, in this connection, brings the Commission’s attention to the ground III of the present appeals of the Appellant wherein the Appellants have stated “….the Appellant need not be given the specific inputs of such Central Security Agencies but just the broad reasons/conclusions on the basis of which the action was taken. This can easily be done without compromising the source or details of such intelligence inputs.” He, in support, also cites an order dated 11.06.2012 of Delhi High Court on the writ petition (civil) (No. 2775/2012) filed by the Global Vectra Helicorp Limited (GVHL) challenging the suspension of its Non Scheduled Operator’s Permit by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation consequent upon the withdrawal of security clearance of the company by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In this order the Delhi High Court, while granting the stay on the said suspension order, has, interalia, observed (para 68 of the order) that the permit holder would be entitled to know, at least, broadly as to what is the material on the basis of which its permit has been summarily suspended. The Counsel thus states that the reason cited by the Respondents for denial of the present information is not justifiable and that therefore the same is liable to be set aside. He accordingly requests the Commission to allow the disclosure of the present information to the Appellants.
10. On consideration of the submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission is not convinced of the Respondents’ plea that the disclosure of the present information would amount to revelation of information relating to Central Security and Intelligence Agencies. It is the Respondents (Ministry of Home Affairs) who finally decided to withdraw the security clearance of the company [viz., Global Vectra Helicorp Limited (GVHL)]. In terms of section 4(1)(d) Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. of the RTI Act, public authorities are obliged to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decision to affected persons. The Appellants (Shri Raakesh D. Soni and Shri Ravinder Kumar Rishi) here are the affected parties of the decision of the public authority (Ministry of Home Affairs) being the Company Secretary and erstwhile Director (respectively) of the said company, and therefore they are entitled to know the reasons (at least broadly, if not complete) for withdrawal of the security clearance of their company by the Ministry of Home Affairs which resulted in suspension of NonScheduled Operator’s Permit of their company.
11. In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide to the Appellant the reason, broadly, as available on records of the public authority, for withdrawal of the security clearance of the Global Vectra Helicorp Limited (GVHL) by the Ministry of Home Affairs, consequent upon which the Non Scheduled Operator’s Permit No. 08/1998 of the said company was suspended by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Timewithin 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
12. Appeals are allowed.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rakesh D. Soni v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000373 & 379