As an Indian citizen, you have the right to access information about government activities and policies that affect your environment and livelihood. In cases where mining activities impact local communities, understanding the environmental safeguards in place is crucial. This article explores a significant RTI case that sheds light on whether progressive mine closure plans are accessible under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and what it means for transparency in the mining sector.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) with a specific request. They sought to obtain copies of the Progressive Mine Closure Plan submitted Mine Chem Ltd. for their Velas Sakhari Mine site. This information was deemed important applicant, likely to understand the environmental responsibilities and future plans for the mine’s closure and rehabilitation.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the IBM, in response to the RTI application, cited a previous order from the Central Information Commission (CIC). According to the PIO, the Progressive Mine Closure Plan was not considered disclosable information as part of the broader Mining Plan. Consequently, the PIO denied the request for disclosure.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The appellant, dissatisfied with the PIO’s response, pursued the matter further a written submission before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The appellant argued that the interpretation of what constitutes disclosable information within a Mining Plan, particularly concerning the reference to the Ministry of Mines, was not universally agreed upon. They suggested that this ambiguity might warrant a review larger bench of the CIC for a definitive resolution.
The CIC, while considering the case, acknowledged a prior ruling it had made concerning appeals filed . D. Dhaya Devadas and others against the Indian Bureau of Mines. In that earlier judgment, the CIC had permitted the disclosure of specific parts of a Mining Plan. These disclosable parts included:
- (i) ‘General information’ and ‘Location and accessibility’ from Chapters 1 & 2 of the Introductory Notes of the Mining Plan.
- (ii) ‘Mine Drainage’, ‘Skating of Mineral rejects and Disposal of waste’, ‘Use of Mineral’, and ‘Other information’ from Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively of Part ‘A’ of the Mining Plan.
- (iii) The ‘Environmental Management Plan’ from Chapter 11 of Part ‘B’ of the Mining Plan.
However, the specific information sought current appellant – the Progressive Mine Closure Plan – was distinct from these previously identified disclosable components.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
Ultimately, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal. The Commission concluded that the Progressive Mine Closure Plan, as sought appellant, was not a disclosable part of the Mining Plan. The CIC reasoned that the disclosure of such information would attract the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Section 8(1)(d) states that there is no obligation to provide information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless larger public interest justifies it. In this case, the Progressive Mine Closure Plan might contain proprietary information or strategies that the mining company considers commercially sensitive.
Section 8(1)(j) exempts information that relates to personal information or information that would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justifies its disclosure. While a mine closure plan might not directly involve personal information, it could contain operational details considered proprietary.
The CIC’s decision underscores that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, it also balances this with the protection of certain sensitive information that could harm third parties or is of a private commercial nature, unless a clear larger public interest is demonstrated.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Information Exemptions: Be aware that not all information held authorities is disclosable. Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act list specific exemptions, such as commercial confidence, personal information, and information that could impede an investigation.
- Lesson 2: Be Specific in Your Request: Clearly define the information you are seeking. Vague requests are more likely to be denied. In this case, while the appellant sought a “Progressive Mine Closure Plan,” the CIC determined it fell outside the scope of previously defined disclosable parts of a mining plan.
- Lesson 3: Be Prepared for Appeals and Further Hearings: If your initial RTI application is denied, don’t give up. The RTI Act provides a robust appellate mechanism. Understand the arguments made in previous cases and how they might apply to your situation. You may need to clearly articulate why the information sought serves a larger public interest.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Relevant Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is responsible for overseeing mining activities and mine closure plans in your area. The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) is a primary authority for many mining-related matters.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Clearly state that you are seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005. Be precise about the documents or information you require.
- Specify the Mine and Company: Mention the specific mine site and the mining company involved, as done in the case above.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the designated PIO and pay the requisite fee (usually Rs. 10 per application). Keep a copy of your application for your records.
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If you do not receive a response within 30 days, or if the response is unsatisfactory, you can file a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. If the first appeal is also unsuccessful, you can then approach the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the ‘Environmental Management Plan’ and any publicly mandated sections of the ‘Progressive Mine Closure Plan’ submitted by [Name of Mining Company] for the [Name of Mine Site] mine, as per the regulations and your department’s disclosure policies.
Conclusion
The case concerning the disclosure of progressive mine closure plans highlights the complexities of information access under the RTI Act. While the Act aims to empower citizens, it also recognizes legitimate grounds for withholding certain types of information. For citizens concerned about environmental impact and corporate responsibility in the mining sector, understanding these nuances is key to effectively using the RTI Act to seek accountability and transparency.
