M A I N   N E W S

CIC raps PMO for denying access to file noting
R. Suryamurthy
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 31
The Chief Information Commissioner, Mr Wajahat Habibullah, has rapped the Prime Minister’s Office for denying access to files pertaining to the appointment of CIC and other Information Commissioners under the RTI Act on the grounds that they were “confidential.”

“The decision of the CPIO was flawed…….the information sought could hardly be construed as information of privacy having no relationship to any public activity or interest as it concerned the appointment to public office,” the CIC held, but disallowed an appeal against PMO Appellate Authority’s order on the issue on technical ground that no specific prayer was made for making the files available to the applicant.

The Appellate Authority in the PMO had rejected the application holding that the files pertaining to the selection of Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners had been earmarked as “confidential” in view of the security classification and was therefore out of bound to any person who did not have any direct concern with the subject matter.

The authority also held that it was for the PMO, in this case, to decide on parting with the information to an individual and see if the public interest in disclosure outweighed harm to the protected interest.

The complainant, Ms Vishaish Uppal, had sought to inspect files, papers relating to the appointment of CIC and other Information Commissioners in November last. The complaint was transferred to Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) where she was invited to inspect the records.

Ms Uppal reverted to PIO in the Prime Minister’s Office stating that she had been shown only one file and was informed by the PIO in DoPT that files pertaining to the entire selection process were with the PMO and not with them.

However, the CPIO in the PMO informed her that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant file in the PMO as they are covered under Section 8(J) of the Right to Information Act.

The Chief Information Commission held that “since there is no Section 8 (J) of the Act, the decision of the CPIO was flawed.”