RTI Convening order of the Court of Inquiry
A helicopter of IAF [Helicopter Mi - 17 V5 (ZP 5220)] was shot down by own missile on 27 Feb 19. A Court of Inquiry was conducted at Air Force Station Srinagar to investigate into the causes of the accident. The Court of Inquiry blamed the applicant for the accident and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Prior to the commencement of a General Court Martial, the applicant asked the IAF authorities to provide him with a copy of the convening order of the Court of Inquiry. When the same was denied, the applicant approached the IAF with an RTI application for the requisite information which was denied u/s 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. The applicant further stated that since the prosecution failed to present the convening order of the court of inquiry and the General Court Martial also did not peruse the same and overruled the defence plea of jurisdiction, the applicant approached the AFT (Regional Bench), Chandimandir, in OA (Appeal) 460 of 2022. Vide order dated 27.04.2022, the AFT directed the IAF to supply the order convening the court of inquiry to the applicant through his counsel. During the hearing, the PIO submitted that the said convening order was given to the appellant in compliance with the AFT’s order. The appellant further submitted that the IAF approached the HC of Punjab and Haryana and secured a vacation on the stay of the GCM, however the AFT order dated 25.05.2022 has not yet been overruled. The CIC observed that disclosure of a copy of the convening order of the court of Inquiry to the applicant is pending adjudication before the Punjab and Haryana HC as per the appellant’s own admission. Though the case is not under the RTI Act, however, the information sought is the same. Therefore, at this stage direction for any disclosure would vitiate the proceedings pending before the HC. As far as the CPIO and the FAA’s plea for denial of information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is concerned, the facts of the case suggests that the same is related to security and strategic information which cannot be disclosed and the apt exemption clause for denial has been invoked, therefore, the denial is accepted.
Comments
If the matter is already pending with the High Court, there is nothing left for the CIC to decide.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com
Forum Sharad Pawar withdraws resignation
NCP Chief Sharad Pawar has withdrawn his resignation. He said he did so in view of the appeals made by party workers and leaders and he respected their sentiments. Perhaps Ajit Pawar wanted to become party president although Sharad Pawar’s daughter Supriya Sule was also a strong contender for the post in case Sharad Pawar would have chosen not to take back his resignation. But Ajit Pawar has welcomed Sharad Pawar’s decision to withdraw his resignation from the post of party President and thus set to rest any speculations about possible rebellion in the family and the party. However, it is too early to jump to any conclusion.
Aditya Malviya
They should highlight on finding solutions
I agree. They should highlight as to how they plan to find solution to some of the important issues faced by the country. They should not announce measures which are against National interest.
S Gopal
