Anuj Dhar v. Ministry Of External Affairs

***** No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00671 Dated: 10 August 2007 Name of the Appellant Shri Anuj Dhar, 263, Kangra Niketan, Vikaspuri, New Delhi 110 018. Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs Background: Shri Anuj Dhar of New Delhi filed an application with the PIO, Ministry of External Affairs, on 2 August 2006, for seeking certified copies of the complete correspondence the Ministry of External Affairs had with the Governments of the USSR and the Russian Federation over the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

2. The PIO vide his letter dated 25 August 2006 informed the Appellant that the request to the Government of USSR and the Russian Federation were made through diplomatic channels at appropriate levels. The PIO also stated that the requisite copies of the correspondence could not be disclosed at it involves the relations with a foreign State and so was exempt from disclosure as per the provisions of clause 8(1)(a)&(f) of the rti act.

3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 23 September 2006 who vide his letter dated 6 November 2006 again denied disclosure of the documents taking recourse to the section 8(1)(a) and (i). The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 23 March 2007.

4. The main stand of the Respondents to the information sought by the Appellant which is regarding the correspondence between India and the Government of the erstwhile USSR and present day Russia was that this information could not be disclosed as it was likely to affect the countrys relationship with another State. On making enquiries from the Respondents, it was clear that this correspondence had neither been seen nor been examined by an expert to come to such a conclusion. Therefore, the Commission felt that the Applicants application had been treated casually.

5. The Commission then directed the Respondents to first have this correspondence examined by their own expert/s and if need be, by an outside expert who they could rely on and then take a firm decision. In case the experts came to the conclusion that the applicability of the denial clause was not relevant in the case, the material could be disclosed to the Appellant. However, in case the Respondents came to the conclusion that the relations between the Governments of India and Russia would be affected through the disclosure of this information, the Commission would like the issue to be settled only after a reference had been made to the Government of Russia.

6. The matter was taken up for a second hearing by the bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner on 10 August 2007.

7. Shri A.K. Naag, Joint Secretary (Inf. & Wel) & CPIO and Shri Nand Kishore, Under Secretary (RTI), represented the Respondents.

8. The Appellant, Shri Anuj Dhar, was present in person. Decision:

9. The Commission heard both the sides. During the hearing, the Respondents stated before the Commission that they had received a response from the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, in pursuance of the Commissions earlier Order in the matter dated 23 March 2007.

10. This letter stated: according to the correspondence received from the Embassy of India, Moscow, the Russian Foreign Office has stated that the documents handed over by them in June 2001 were meant only for the GOIs official use and for the work of the Commission in investigations into the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

11. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that his request included the entire correspondence between the Governments of India and the USSR regarding the issue of Netajis disappearance. The Commission accepted this request and directed the Respondents to clearly mention this while seeking the approval of the Russian authorities for disclosure of this material.

12. Also during the hearing, the Appellant made a plea for a copy of the letter received by the Ministry of External Affairs resulting from the application that he had made on the issue. The Commission saw no objection in this request and directs the Respondents to supply a copy of this letter to the Appellant.

13. The Commission further feels that if the material could be made available to the Justice Mukherjee Commission for inquiry into the disappearance of Netaji, there is no reason why this material should not be disclosed now to any Researcher now that that Commissions work is over. The information Commission, therefore, is all for disclosure of this material to the Appellant. However, it advises the Ministry of External Affairs to seek a formal clearance from the Russian Authorities in the matter. Sd/- (O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: Sd/- (G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar

1. Shri Anuj Dhar, 263, Kangra Niketan, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018

2. Shri A.K. Nag, Joint Secretary (Wel & Inf) & Central Public Information Officer, Room No. 207, Akbar Bhawan, Ministry of External Affairs, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021

3. Shri Ajay Choudhary, Additional Secretary & Appellate Authority, Room No. 144 C, South Block, Ministry of External Affairs, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110011

4. Officer Incharge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC