In compliance of the Calcutta High Court order, ministry of personnel has asked all ministries and government departments to take appropriate action regarding revealing identities of applicants to third or private parties

Recent cases of two Right to Information (RTI) activists highlight the risks where one was done to death and the other brutally assaulted, after their names were disclosed to those against whom information was sought. This led to the central government asking its ministries and offices to abide by the Calcutta High Court order of 11 November 2013, to facilitate the authorities to ‘take appropriate measure to hide information with regard to personal details of the activist to avoid any harassment by the persons having vested interest’. A similar petition was also filed by Delhi-based RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) on 28 October 2013.
 

It may be recalled that, on 13 December 2013, RTI activist Anoop Singh from Greater Noida was burnt with cigarette butts and iron rods before he being dumped on a roadside, four days later. On 18^th December, Abrar Ansari, a Bhiwandi (Maharashtra)-based RTI activist was killed because he sought information regarding violations in building constructions. In both case, the persons against whom information was sought have allegedly committed these crimes.
 

Cmde Batra pursued the case with Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (the Ministry) asking it to intervene immediately to protect the lives of the whistleblowers. He wrote to the secretary of the ministry stating that, sending applicants’ request directly to private organizations or persons was in contravention of Section 2(f) and 6(3) of RTI Act. He said, “Private companies do not fall under public authorities, and therefore applications should not be forwarded to them. Instead, PIOs should collect the required information by withholding the name of the latter.”
 

Accordingly, last week, the Ministry sent an official memorandum to all ministries and departments to comply by the directions of the Calcutta High Court.
 

The order states, “we have considered the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 6 /(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly provide, an applicant making request for informationshall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any otherpersonal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
 

Looking at the said provision, we find logic in the submission of the petitioner. When the legislature thought it fit, the applicant need not disclose any personal detail, the authority need not disclose any personal detail, the authority should not insist upon his detailed whereabouts particularly when post box number is provided for that would establish contact with him and the authority.
 

In case the authority would find any difficulty with the post box number, they may insist upon personal details. However, in such case, it would be the solemn duty of the authority to hide such information and particularly from their website so that people at large would not know of the details.
 

…the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel should circulate the copy of this order to all concerned so that the authority can take appropriate measure to hide information with regard to personal details of the activist to avoid any harassment by the person having vested interested.”
 

As per the High Court order, “the writ petitioner claiming to be an activist in the field of the right to information, has approached us  by filing the present writ petition with the prayer, the authority should not insist upon the detailed address of the applicant as and when any application is made under the Right To Information Act. He apprehends, the interested parties would cause a threat to the activist and in fact there had been past incidents of unnatural deaths of activists in the field, presumably by the interested persons having vested interest to conceal the information that is asked for by the activist.”
 

“The petitioner submits, the authority may not insist upon the detailed address particularly when the applicant would provide a particular post box number that would automatically conceal their identity to the public at large.”
 

Another RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak has another view. He writes, calling for views, “I am not too sure if the name of an applicant should be withheld in every case where third party information is involved. Of course when seeking information that may expose corruption or wrongdoing, this is necessary for the safety of the applicant. However a lot of people seek information under RTI to settle personal issues such as divorce or alimony suits. I am not too sure it would be just to withhold the name of the applicant in such cases. Of course the contact details of the person may not be provided. I am copying this to NCPRI and other RTI discussion groups for their reaction.”

In compliance of the Calcutta High Court order, ministry of personnel has asked all ministries and government departments to take appropriate action regarding revealing identities of applicants to third or private parties

Recent cases of two Right to Information (RTI) activists highlight the risks where one was done to death and the other brutally assaulted, after their names were disclosed to those against whom information was sought. This led to the central government asking its ministries and offices to abide by the Calcutta High Court order of 11 November 2013, to facilitate the authorities to ‘take appropriate measure to hide information with regard to personal details of the activist to avoid any harassment by the persons having vested interest’. A similar petition was also filed by Delhi-based RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) on 28 October 2013.
 

It may be recalled that, on 13 December 2013, RTI activist Anoop Singh from Greater Noida was burnt with cigarette butts and iron rods before he being dumped on a roadside, four days later. On 18^th December, Abrar Ansari, a Bhiwandi (Maharashtra)-based RTI activist was killed because he sought information regarding violations in building constructions. In both case, the persons against whom information was sought have allegedly committed these crimes.
 

Cmde Batra pursued the case with Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (the Ministry) asking it to intervene immediately to protect the lives of the whistleblowers. He wrote to the secretary of the ministry stating that, sending applicants’ request directly to private organizations or persons was in contravention of Section 2(f) and 6(3) of RTI Act. He said, “Private companies do not fall under public authorities, and therefore applications should not be forwarded to them. Instead, PIOs should collect the required information by withholding the name of the latter.”
 

Accordingly, last week, the Ministry sent an official memorandum to all ministries and departments to comply by the directions of the Calcutta High Court.
 

The order states, “we have considered the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 6 /(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly provide, an applicant making request for informationshall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any otherpersonal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
 

Looking at the said provision, we find logic in the submission of the petitioner. When the legislature thought it fit, the applicant need not disclose any personal detail, the authority need not disclose any personal detail, the authority should not insist upon his detailed whereabouts particularly when post box number is provided for that would establish contact with him and the authority.
 

In case the authority would find any difficulty with the post box number, they may insist upon personal details. However, in such case, it would be the solemn duty of the authority to hide such information and particularly from their website so that people at large would not know of the details.
 

…the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel should circulate the copy of this order to all concerned so that the authority can take appropriate measure to hide information with regard to personal details of the activist to avoid any harassment by the person having vested interested.”
 

As per the High Court order, “the writ petitioner claiming to be an activist in the field of the right to information, has approached us  by filing the present writ petition with the prayer, the authority should not insist upon the detailed address of the applicant as and when any application is made under the Right To Information Act. He apprehends, the interested parties would cause a threat to the activist and in fact there had been past incidents of unnatural deaths of activists in the field, presumably by the interested persons having vested interest to conceal the information that is asked for by the activist.”
 

“The petitioner submits, the authority may not insist upon the detailed address particularly when the applicant would provide a particular post box number that would automatically conceal their identity to the public at large.”
 

Another RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak has another view. He writes, calling for views, “I am not too sure if the name of an applicant should be withheld in every case where third party information is involved. Of course when seeking information that may expose corruption or wrongdoing, this is necessary for the safety of the applicant. However a lot of people seek information under RTI to settle personal issues such as divorce or alimony suits. I am not too sure it would be just to withhold the name of the applicant in such cases. Of course the contact details of the person may not be provided. I am copying this to NCPRI and other RTI discussion groups for their reaction.”