New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has held that that the Rashtrapati Bhawan claimed exemption from replying to a Right to Information (RTI) query on proclamation of President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018, and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, citing “element of confidentiality” without providing “proper reason or justification”.
It has, therefore, directed the chief public information officer (CPIO) and officer on special duty at the President’s Secretariat to re-examine the RTI application and provide an “appropriate response”.
The order by chief information commissioner (CIC) Y.K. Sinha came on a petition filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak.
Following the proclamation of President’s Rule in erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir in 2018, Nayak had in October 2019 filed an RTI application with the Rashtrapati Bhawan seeking its response on 18 points.
The information sought in the application was significant since it sought to provide the sequence of events leading to the President’s Rule in the state and its reorganisation into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
A brief history of the proclamation of President’s Rule in J&K
It is pertinent to note that after Bharatiya Janata Party left the alliance with People’s Democratic Party in Jammu and Kashmir, then chief minister Mehbooba Mufti had on June 19, 2018 sent her resignation to governor N.N. Vohra. With no party or coalition having the numbers to form the next government, the governor on June 20 issued a proclamation under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir with the concurrence of the President of India.
With this, the governor’s rule was imposed for six months, and the proclamation issued by the governor ceased on December 19, 2018. Under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, there was no provision for further continuation of such proclamation after six months.
Hence, on the recommendation of the governor and with regard to the prevailing situation in the state, the President of India issued a proclamation promulgating President’s Rule in J&K under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, a resolution approving the proclamation by the President was passed in the Lok Sabha on December 28, 2018 and in the Rajya Sabha on January 3, 2019.
Also read: ‘Kicked’, ‘Abused’: Police Attack Journalists Covering Muharram Procession in Srinagar
Details sought in the petition
Nayak in his petition had asked for the “exact date and time” when files pertaining to the recommendation for issuance of the December 19, 2018 proclamation and Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 were put up before the President, and when he appended his signature to the order.
The RTI activist had also asked “when the draft Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 was received” by the Secretariat for referral to the Lok Sabha, when it was put up for the President’s consideration and when he appended his signature to it.
Nayak’s query which was submitted on October 31, 2019 received the CPIO’s reply on December 2, 2019.
Not satisfied with it, Nayak filed a first appeal on January 27, 2020, but the First Appellate Authority on February 25 only reiterated the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Nayak approached the Commission with the second appeal.
During the hearing, held through video-conferencing earlier this month, Nayak stated that he had only sought generic information regarding the date and time of receipt of various files by the Secretariat, when it had put up the files before the President and when had he appended his signature to the same. Thus, he claimed, the exemption was incorrectly claimed under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 without any reason or justification.
Nayak further stated that the information sought by him is required to be routinely maintained by the public authority in the dak and file movement register and in the e-office system. Therefore, he further insisted that the information sought can be easily retrieved from the database at a click of a button by expending little time and energy.
R.K. Sharma, chief public information officer and officer on special duty, and Ratnesh Kumar, assistant section officer – constitutional affairs participated in the hearing, on behalf of Rashtrapati Bhawan. They stated that “since an element of confidentiality was involved in the information sought by the appellant, an exemption under Section 8(1)(e) was claimed,” according to Sinha’s order.
Sharma further stated that information regarding the Bills that received the assent of the President were available in the public domain wherein the date on which the President gave the assent is also provided, Sinha noted.