ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sat, Apr 20, 2024
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> National Security
Supreme Court(National Security)/ High Courts(National Security)
1 10 Aug, 2016 Aparna Datta Bakshi Vs. RTI Cell, Sena Bhawan

The   Appellant   sought   information   related   to   TSD (Technical   Service   Division).   She   wants   copy   of noting   directing   Board   of   Officers   to   probe activities of TSD, details of MI/GS funds allotted to TSD   between   2010   and   2013   and   other   connected
The Commission, after perusal of documents/files that invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act is not possible in this case because various issues finding mention in the reports/ files shown to the Commission. Are inter linked and any disclosure would compromise on the strategic security of the country. Technical Support Division (TSD) of the Indian Army was a specialized Intelligence Unit set up under the Ministry of Defence. Any disclosure of information would reveal operational mechanism and functioning of the intelligence services. Further, the Report of the Board of officers has brought out various objectives of TSD, details of its methodology, trade craft as well as operational expenditure of the Secret Service fund. The Commission disallows disclosure of the above reports.
2 27 May, 2016 S. S. Vohra Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India

The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.12.2015 wherein it was held that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI –ought .to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the respondents. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection reports/file notings for two years prior to 2012 in respect of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Bank and also two NBFCs viz. Muthoot Finance and Narayan Sriram Investments to the appellant.
3 27 Apr, 2016 Akash Vashishtha vs PIO, MOD, New Delhi

The applicant sought certain information relating to Defence matters.

The Commission held that from the perusal of the RTI application, it is clear that information sought was neither economic nor political but was connected with defence deals (military, aircraft and naval) executed by the government with foreign countries since 2007. The entire information is covered under exemption clause of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
4 15 Feb, 2016 S.K Rana Vs. ADG MT (AE), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about expenditure incurred on official visits carried out by Lt. Gen. AS Lamba, Vice Chief of Army Staff during 15.82011 to 31.10.2011 the respondent stated that the appellant is seeking information about official domestic visits, disclosure of which may affect the security of the Nation and such information are exempted under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act — the Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.
5 07 Apr, 2015 S P Bansal Vs. Currency Note Press, Nasik

The complainant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India, New Delhi seeking information regarding the prefixes which was used in star (*) notes from the year 2006 to 2012 etc. The CPIO denied the information on the ground that disclosure of information would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country and economic interest of the State and may lead to incitement of an offence, hence, exempt u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent.
6 06 Jul, 2012 Shri K.V.R.K. Raju Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd..

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO about some details of projects for creation of National Population Register and Marine Fishers some details of projects for creation of National Population Register and Marine Fishers Database Section 8(1)(d).
CIC agreed with the decision of the Appellate Authority to disclose the information.

The Appellant has sought complete correspondences / file notings / documents relating to mercy petitions of Afzal Guru and other convicts of death sentence whose mercy petitions have been filed after rejection of the mercy petitions of Devinder Singh Khullu and Mahender Nath Dass. In query.4, the Appellant has categorically sought the recommendations / comments made by the MHA to the president of India in respect of such mercy petitions. The Commission directed the CPIO of the MHA to disclose the copies of the file notings not forming part of the ministerial advice to the President of India, as sought by the Appellant, after severing all the names and other references regarding the identities of the public servants regarding those file notings and making those correspondence. The CPIO is further directed to disclose the copies of the correspondence made by MHA to the President’s Secretariat from time to time in connection with the mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application, except those correspondence, which in the CPIO’s opinion are exempt from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Section 7(1) Section 8(1)(a)
8 26 Jun, 2012 Shri Deepak Saluja Public Authority Prime Vs.

The correspondence was exchanged between the Prime Minister of India and the Russian President/Prime Minister – the correspondence exchanged between the Heads of two Governments relates to multiple issues – the appellant sought copy of the same – the CPIO stated that the disclosure of correspondence between PM and other Heads of State/Government would prejudicially affect relations with foreign States. Section 8(1)(a).
that correspondence exchanged between
the Heads of two Governments is barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI
ACT. The decision of the CPIO upheld by CIC and the appeal is dismissed.
9 22 Jun, 2012 Bernard D cruz G v ISRO, Bangalore

The Appellant filed RTI application and had sought reason for the failure of GSLV D-3 launched by ISRO
The Commission held that the ISRO programme is highly sensitive and confidential. Reasons of failure cannot be placed in public domain u/s 8(1)(a) & 4 of the RTI Act. Hence, this information is not disclosable to the appellant.
10 12 Jun, 2012 Manoj K Chhabra v Indian Navy

The appellant had sought information regarding MoD's Request for Proposal of 7.9.2007 for procurement of 98 heavy weight torpedoes for the sub-marines under Project P75 of the Indian Navy and the matters related there-with
The Commission held that the procurement of torpedoes is a highly sensitive matter and has a direct bearing on the national security and, therefore, disclosure of any information in regard thereto would be prejudicial to the national security. CIC upheld the decision taken by the CPIO and AA.
11 07 Sep, 2011 Mr. Om Prakash Kashiram vs Mr. B. C. Gupta PIO & Company Secretary Uranium Corporation of India Ltd

The Commission held that the information - production of fissile materials such as Uranium is a matter of strategic importance and has impact on the security of the Nation. The Commission accepts the plea of the PIO that the information is exempt under section 8(I)(a) of the RTI Act.
12 25 Aug, 2009 Brig. Ujjal Dasgupta Vs. Cabinet Secretariat

The Appellant sough certain information from CPIO, Cabinet Sectt.

The Commission is only expected to see as to whether the claim of exemption is prima facie justified or not. The nature of information asked for by the appellant and the organization to which it relates gives credence to the claim of the Public Authority that its disclosure may affect security of the State and the pendency of a criminal trial in a competent court leaves no doubt that the disclosure of information in a matter like this may prejudicially affect national security. In view of this, the Commission is of the view that claim of exemption under both Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(h) is justified.
13 19 Jun, 2008 Shri Nusli Wadia Vs. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)

The appellant sought the following information from the CPIO, MEA :-
(i) “documents, notes of meeting and file notes relating to or
arising out of the letter dated July 06, 2001 sent by Mrs. Dina
Wadia to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India including notes
of or documents relating to the discussion between the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and the Hon’ble External Affairs Minister referred to in the letter no.757/PSBPM/2001 dated July 13, 2001;
(ii) copies of all documents, notes of meetings, file notings, including inter-ministerial notes, advice sought or given including all approvals, proposals, recommendations from the concerned ministers/ICCR including those to and from
the Hon’ble Prime Minister;
(iii) minutes of meetings with the Hon’ble Prime Minister and
any other Ministers/Officials on the matter; and (iv) Opinions given by any authority or person, including
legal advice.”
The applicant received a detailed response from the CPIO along with copies of certain documents but some of the documents were withheld under Section 8(1)(a).

CIC directed the MEA to initiate an exercise to determine which part of the information sought by appellant is sensitive or is likely to affect adversely India’s relations with a foreign State, and duly record its reasons as to why disclosure of any part of the information withheld from disclosure would affect such relations with a foreign State, so as to bring the disclosure within the ambit of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Total Case uploaded: 13