2009 (9) TMI 708 - Commission - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Disclosure of information under RTI Act pertaining to qualifications, eligibility conditions, criteria for shortlisting candidates, and list of officers who opted for the post of Member, Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2. Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act regarding the list of officers empanelled as Members of CBEC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disclosure of Information Under RTI Act (Queries C to G)

The appellant had requested information regarding the qualifications, eligibility conditions, criteria for shortlisting candidates, and the list of officers who opted for the post of Member, CBEC for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. The respondents contended that the information requested in queries C to G had been fully disclosed. The CPIO had provided the Recruitment Rules for the selection of Members of CBEC and the required lists through a communication dated 10-10-2008. Additionally, the Prime Minister's guidelines regarding the criteria for selection were also provided. The Commission concluded that the information pertaining to items C to G had been fully disclosed and directed that no further disclosure obligation for these items shall be cast on the respondents.

Issue 2: Exemption from Disclosure (Query H)

The appellant sought the list of officers who were actually empanelled as Members of CBEC for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. The respondents declined to disclose this information, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(i), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. They argued that the empanelment list was classified as SECRET/CONFIDENTIAL and prepared with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The respondents emphasized that the disclosure of such information could negatively impact organizational morale and interpersonal relationships and that the empanelment process involved a fiduciary relationship.

The Commission analyzed the respondents' arguments and found them unpersuasive. It noted that transparency in the process of selecting personnel for high offices was essential to remove doubts and apprehensions about the integrity of the processes. The Commission referred to its earlier decisions, which authorized the disclosure of Departmental Promotion Committee-related information, stating that transparency promoted organizational morale by improving trust between the organization and its employees.

The Commission also considered the arguments regarding the first and second provisos of Section 8(1)(i) and concluded that the requested information did not attract the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e). The empanelment process and the approved list of empanelled officers were related to governance and not personal information of any third party. The Commission rejected the contention that the information attracted Section 8(1)(e), as there was no fiduciary relationship involved.

The Commission noted that the Government had removed all secrecy from the approved panels of IAS and IPS officers and saw no reason why the panels of IRS officers should remain excluded from the norms of transparency. Therefore, the Commission directed the respondents to furnish the information requested at Sl. H in the appellant's RTI-application within two weeks of receiving the order.

Decision:

The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the information requested at Sl. H in the RTI-application be furnished to the appellant within two weeks. Copies of the direction were to be sent to the parties involved.

← Previous Next →