Is the President a Public Authority?
Will Official Secrets Act over ride RTI Act?
The CIC recently considered a very interesting case. The applicant had asked for the correspondence between the former President Late Shri K.R. Narayanan and the former Prime Minister Shri A.B. Vajpayee between the period from 28.2.02 and 15.3.02.
The matter was referred to the full bench which heard the appellant through video conference.
Role of President of India as seen by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab
"President of Indiais not at all a glorified cipher. He represents the majority of the State, is at the Apex, though only symbolically, and has rapport with the people and parties, being above politics. His vigilant presence makes for good government, if only he uses, what Bagehot described as the "Right to be consulted to warn and encourage". Indeed Article 78 wisely used, keeps the President in close touch with the Prime Minister of matters of national importance and policy significance and there is no doubt that the imprint of his personality may chasten and correct the political government."
During the course of hearing, on a query from the Commission, the Addl. Solicitor General conceded that the President is also a Public Authority as any other Public Authority.
Counsel argued that Article 361 cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the President is not even answerable to the people. Definitely, the President is not beyond public scrutiny even though, he may not be answerable to the Courts. Presidential privilege cannot override his rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), since Right to Information is a mechanism to avail those rights which cannot be denied. In participatory governance, Government cannot seek any privilege against its citizens
The Commission considered the following questions
1. Whether the Public Authority’s claim of privilege under the Law of Evidence is justifiable under the RTI Act, 2005?
2. Whether the CPIO or Public Authority can claim immunity from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution?
3. Whether the denial of information to the appellant can be justified in this case under Section 8 (1) (a) or under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?
4. Whether there is any infirmity in the order passed by the CPIO or by the Appellate Authority denying the requested information to the Appellant?
And the Commission held
1. No public authority can claim to deny any information on the ground that it happens to be a “privileged” one under the Indian Evidence Act. Section 3 of the Right to Information Act confers a right on all citizens to obtain information and it casts an obligation on all public authorities to provide the information so demanded. The right thus conferred is only subject to the other provisions of the Act and to no other law.
2. the CPIO cannot deny information sought under the Right to Information Act by taking recourse to either the Law of Evidence or Article 74(2), of the Constitution of India.
3. This, however, does not mean that the disclosure can be claimed as a matter of right in respect of all types/categories of information/ correspondence.
4. the only relevant ground for denial could be that the disclosure could prejudicially affect the security of the nation and not on other grounds like the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc.
Finally the Commission decided to see the correspondence and then decide the issue. The government was asked to produce the correspondence on 22nd August 2006.
(C. Ramesh v Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions.)