New Delhi: Nearly one-and-a-half-years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetisation move, R.K. Mathur, the Chief Information Commissioner of India, recently disposed of an appeal that had questioned the “legality/constitutionality of the demonetisation decision and its process and wanted to know whether the officers brought out the legal/constitutional issues involved in the decision to the notice of PM.”
Citing the “inconvenience faced by the general public due to demonetisation”, R.L. Kain had filed the appeal on November 15, soon after government had announced the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, but his plea was stonewalled by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) that took shelter behind section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act that pertains to “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.”
CIC disposes plea without penalty despite PMO’s denial of information
Without explaining how the PMO’s stand to seek cover behind section 8(1)(a) was correct despite the appellant repeatedly complaining that he has been “wrongly denied information” by the PMO citing the section, Mathur only noted that “the stand informed by Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) was that the disclosure of the information would adversely impact the security and economic interests of the country in the then prevailing situation.”
Though the information could have been sought now that 15 months have passed, he chose to dispose of the case without imposing any penalty on the PMO, as Kain had sought, and noted: “The Commission is of the view that in the interest of the then ongoing process of demonetisation and the then prevailing situation in the country, the CPIO was justified in the stand taken by him.”
On his part, Kain had raised several pertinent questions regarding demonetisation. Mathur recorded in his order that Kain had “stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had publicly stated in election meetings in November 2016 that notes were under printing for the last three to six months. He asked that if notes were being printed beforehand, then, how was the proposal of the RBI received at 6 p.m on November 8, 2016, the cabinet decision taken at 7 pm and notes demonetised at 8 pm the same day.”
‘Disconnect between PM-FM’s claims’
The appellant had stated that finance minister Arun Jaitley in various television programmes had stated that “the notes were under printing for the last many months at six government printing presses.” As such, he had claimed that the statements of the PM and the FM were contradictory.
Kain had also said that as per section 24 of the RBI Act, 1934, there is no series of denomination of Rs 2,000 and any additions or subtractions require amendments by Parliament. However, in the instant case, no executive orders or statutory orders were issued and printing of Rs 2,000 notes was commenced without any amendment in the statute. He, therefore, alleged that printing of new series of Rs 2,000 resulted in the issue of illegal notes.
Mathur also recorded that Kain had stated that “it is mandatory duty of government to communicate to the President all decisions of the council of ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation under Article 78 of the constitution.” Hence, he had contended that the CPIO had no locus standi to refuse information.
RBI minutes on designs, dimensions of new notes
Interestingly, the CIC order also noted that Kain had stated in his plea that the CPIO, RBI, Mumbai had already provided the extract of minutes of the meeting of the Central Board of Directors held on May 19, 2016, approving the designs, dimensions of the new notes but the PMO had taken the shelter of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to deny information to him.
Therefore, Kain had charged that the PMO wrongly denied him the information under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act and had also called for penalty to be imposed on the respondent.
PMO said sharing information would jeopardise demonetisation process
In its response, the CPIO of PMO had submitted that “sharing of any information pertaining to the matter may have jeopardised the entire process of demonetisation which had been undertaken in utmost secrecy.”
Even on the question of “approval for new series of bank notes”, he submitted that, the “process of introducing a new note and design, inter alia including concept of design, security features, preparation of design frame, dye preparation, preparation of ink, colour combination etc along with stage by stage procedure for approval is guarded as top secret because leakage of any information in the matter would have a serious impact on the entire currency printing and currency management system, thereby prejudicially affecting the economic interest of the state”
It is surprising that despite Kain objecting to denial of information under Section 8(1)(a), the commission observed that “the stand taken by the respondent that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act was neither rebutted by the appellant in appeal nor in verbal submissions.”
In view of the arguments from both sides, Mathur held that “in the interest of the then ongoing process of demonetisation and the then prevailing situation in the country, the CPIO was justified in the stand taken by him.”