Undesirable Contact Men?
It is an open secret that CBI maintains a list of undesirable contact men called UCM. The list is circulated to all government departments to keep an eye on these undesirable men, though most of them must be hanging around the corridors of power. A Supreme Court lawyer P C Srivastava came to know that he figured in the list for 29 years. He asked the CBI under the RTI Act,
1. Whether any written complaint in respect of any undesirable activities alleged to have been carried out by him was made against him to CBI.
2. If yes, by whom with full particulars and copy of said complaint.
3. If there was no such written complaint against him then what was the other basis for CBI to include his name in the said list of undesirable Contact Men.
The CBI refused to part with the information and so Srivastaav appealed the Central Information Commission. The very existence of such a list was doubted in the Commission. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove that CBI indeed had possession of the document sought. Even if the list existed, the CIC was inclined not to reveal it as it observed,
Security and investigating agencies of the Govt. can and do advise the Government about persons, contact with whom is not in the best interest of the Government. It is a system of forewarning the Government about contacts with persons of doubtful reputation and credentials. Such information, by its very nature, cannot be open and has to be made in the strictest confidence. The basis on which the security/investigating agencies prepare such list has to be the information collected from a variety of sources. These sources provide the assistance to the security agency in full confidence that the information shall not be disclosed nor the informant’s identity compromised. It is for the security agency to decide, based on its investigation and enquiries, as to how to filter and collate information received from various sources – which to go by and which to discard. It is a complex process of intelligence gathering which in our view enjoys the protection of sub-section 8(1) (g). There is no public interest that would commend disclosure of such information.
The Commission was not very happy with the advocate’s language when it observed,
We are disturbed to find the appeal before us larded with frequent use of invective and aspersion against senior government functionaries of the land. This Commission is mandated only to facilitate access to information, not be party to character assassination. Appellant Shri PC Srivastava, a venerable advocate is advised to avoid the use of such intemperate language, unbecoming of judicial decorum in which he is well experienced, in his correspondence with this Commission.
Click here to see the full text of the CIC order.