Many Indian citizens are curious about the workings of crucial government agencies, especially those dealing with national security. Understanding the foundational authority behind organizations like the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) is a common concern. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to seek such fundamental information, even when dealing with sensitive bodies, and what happens when the path isn’t straightforward.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) with two specific queries. Firstly, they wanted to know the exact authority under which the RAW and NTRO were established. This involved seeking details like government orders, notifications, ordinances, or enactments that formally brought these organizations into existence. Secondly, the applicant was interested in the accountability mechanisms in place for both RAW and NTRO, including how their financial audits were conducted. The applicant believed this information was crucial for understanding the governance and oversight of these vital intelligence and technical research agencies.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) at the PMO, upon receiving the RTI applications, initially chose to transfer them to the respective organizations, RAW and NTRO, citing Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. This section allows a PIO to transfer an application to another public authority if the information sought is believed to be held authority. However, both RAW and NTRO are listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which exempts certain intelligence and security organizations from the purview of the Act for providing information. Consequently, the applicant received no information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the PMO then intervened. Following the FAA’s direction, the PIO of the PMO responded that the specific government order establishing RAW could not be disclosed. This refusal was based on Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which permits withholding information if its disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State, or relations with foreign states, or lead to incitement of an offence. The PIO did not provide details regarding NTRO’s establishment or the accountability mechanisms for either organization at this stage.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the initial transfer of the RTI applications PMO’s PIO was incorrect. They contended that the PMO itself should have handled the applications and provided the information, as the foundational establishment details might predate the organizations’ independent RTI responses. The appellant emphasized their right to receive a comprehensive response directly from the PMO concerning the origin of these agencies.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC made a crucial observation regarding the timing of the information sought. The Commission noted that the information requested appellant pertained to the establishment of RAW and NTRO, which likely predates the complete transfer of all relevant records to these organizations. Therefore, the CIC held that transferring the applications to RAW and NTRO might not have been necessary if the foundational establishment documents were still held PMO. The Commission clarified that the disclosure of any information would depend on its nature and whether it falls under any exemption clauses of the RTI Act. Significantly, the CIC directed the PIO of the PMO to re-examine both cases. The PIO was instructed to actively search for any government notification, ordinance, or enactment that established RAW and NTRO and to disclose these documents if found. Furthermore, the CIC ordered that if any specific communication, circular, or Office Memorandum (OM) related to the accountability mechanisms of these organizations exists, it should also be disclosed, subject to the same exemption provisions. Crucially, the CIC mandated that if the PIO decided to deny any information, they must provide a detailed, reasoned order (a “speaking order”) justifying the non-disclosure in strict compliance with the RTI Act.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence with the Right Authority is Key. Even if an application is initially transferred, if you believe the information should be held original authority, argue your case. The CIC recognized that foundational documents might remain with the originating department.
- Lesson 2: Understand Exemption Clauses. While the RTI Act is powerful, provisions like Section 8(1)(a) exist to protect national security and strategic interests. Be prepared for information to be denied if it clearly falls under these exemptions, but always ensure the denial is justified with a speaking order.
- Lesson 3: Demand Justification for Non-Disclosure. If information is denied, the PIO must provide a detailed “speaking order” explaining why. This ensures transparency and allows for proper review authorities. Don’t accept vague refusals.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: For matters concerning the establishment or high-level policy of intelligence agencies, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is often the appropriate authority.
- Clearly State Your Request: Be specific about the information you seek. For example, ask for the “Government Order/Notification/Ordinance/Enactment under which [Organization Name] was established.” Also, inquire about “details of the accountability mechanism and financial audit process for [Organization Name].”
- Reference Relevant Sections (Optional but Helpful): You can mention your reliance on the RTI Act for seeking this information.
- Pay the Fee and Submit: Follow the standard RTI application procedure, including paying the required fee and submitting the application either online or offline.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under which specific Government Order, Notification, Ordinance, or Enactment was the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) established? Please also provide details of the established accountability mechanism and the process for financial auditing for RAW. Similarly, please provide the same information for the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO).
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for citizens to seek fundamental information about how their government functions, even concerning sensitive organizations. While national security considerations are paramount, the process of establishing and holding these organizations accountable is a matter of public interest. The CIC’s directive for the PMO to actively search for and disclose the foundational documents, while respecting genuine exemptions, underscores the spirit of transparency that the RTI Act aims to foster. the process and being persistent, citizens can effectively use RTI to gain crucial insights into the governance of India’s vital agencies.
