PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No. KP(M)109/2007

Dated 11-01-2008

Name of the Complainant:
Shri Topon Lal Baruah, IAS (Retd)
12, Bye lane, R.G. Baruah Road
Guwahati – 781024.

Name of the Public Authority / SPIO:
Director General of Police, Assam

The following were present
1. Shri R.N. Mathur DGP, Assam.
2. Shri G. Bhuyan IGP (A), Assam
3. Shri Topon Lal Baruah

Brief of the case
On 27.11.07 Shri Topon Lal Baruah, IAS (Retd) of Guwahati submitted an appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 against the order dated 15.10.07 of the DGP, Assam. In his appeal petition, Shri Baruah stated that on 21.5.07 he applied to the State Public Information Officer of the office of the Director General of Police, Assam for information on rehabilitation of surrendered militants in Assam during the period from 1998 to 2007. The SPIO, on 20.8.07, informed him that the set of information sought by him was exempted from disclosure under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also as per Government Notification No. PLA.384/2005/54 dated 8.3.2006 the Special Branch of Assam Police was exempted from the purview of RTI Act, 2005.

Against the order of the SPIO he preferred an appeal to the DGP, Assam under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 19.9.07. He contended in his appeal that the information sought for had already been disclosed by the authorities in reply to Assembly questions and also by the IGP (SB), Assam in press conferences and therefore were in public domain. As such information sought for could not be denied under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.

The information sought for by him are as follows:

  1. How many militants (category wise – ULFA/BODO) surrendered to avail the rehabilitation assistance under 1998 policy, during the period 1998-2004, year-wise?
  2. No. of weapons (showing types) deposited by the surrendered militants during the same period?
  3. Total amount of compensation paid for the surrendered weapons?
  4. How many militants (category wise – ULFA/BODO) surrendered under the latest Rehabilitation Policy announced in 2005?
  5. No. of militants attending Rehabilitation camps.
  6. Names of NGO’s associated in running Rehabilitations Camps.
  7. Total amount of Rehabilitation assistance paid so far.
  8. Total amount earmarked for such assistance in the current budget.
  9. Whether fund for 1998 and 2005 schemes were fully funded by the Central Government?
  10. Total outstanding amount payable to Banks and Financial Institutions in respect of 100% Margin Money scheme for surrendered militants introduced in 1992.
Submission of the Parties
The appellant, Shri Baruah, contended that the DGP, Assam in his order partially allowed his appeal by directing the SPIO to disclose information in respect of six items only as against his request for information on ten items. The DGP, Assam did not allow disclosure of information on the following items on the ground that the Special Branch of Police is exempted under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005:
  1. Number of weapons deposited by the surrendered militants during the period 1998-2007.
  2. Total amount of compensation paid for surrendered weapons
  3. Total amount of rehabilitation assistance paid so far
  4. Total outstanding amount payable to banks and financial institutions in respect of 100 % Margin Money scheme for surrendered militants introduced in 1992.
The appellant contended that the DGP, Assam while disposing the appeal did not apply his mind nor perused the documents submitted by him in support of his claims that the weapons surrendered by militants were in public knowledge, because the details of weapons surrendered by militants are regularly disclosed to the press.

He stated that the 1998 scheme for Surrendered cum Rehabilitation of militants of the North East offers cash awards ranging from Rs. 25000 to Rs. 3 lakhs depending on type of weapon surrendered. As the scheme under which cash award is to be paid is not a secret document and available to the public any action taken under the scheme cannot be treated as secret and information under the scheme cannot be denied to the public. The appellant further contented that the 2004 scheme formulated by the Union Home Ministry for rehabilitation of surrendered militants provided for financial assistance of Rs. 1.50 lakh per surrendered militant to be paid after three years of good behaviour. The amount is to be paid from budgeted amount. As budget is a public document approved by the legislature, expenditure is subject to audit by the CAG/AG and open to discussion in the legislatures, such information as the amount of rehabilitation assistance paid cannot be barred from disclosure.

The appellant further contended that under the 100% Margin Money Scheme introduced in 1992 for rehabilitation of surrendered militants, the State Government provided margin money of Rs. 50,000 and the banks and financial institutions offered loan up to a limit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs against government guarantee. This is also in public domain.

The appellant clearly stated that Section 17 of the Assam Police Act 2007 which specifies the Rules of Special Branch of the Assam Police speaks only about the domain of Special Branch and it does not include the subject of rehabilitation of surrendered militants. In other words, the exemption granted by notification under section 24 (4) of RTI Act 2005 would not apply in the matter of this function of the Special Branch as the details are already in public domain. Moreover earlier the Government of Assam entrusted the Director of Industries as the competent authority to deal with the rehabilitation of surrendered militants.

He alleged that the decision of the DGP, Assam as the First Appellate Authority was not a reasoned order and it was not specifically mentioned under what clause of the RTI Act, whether under section 8 or 24 the DGP rejected his prayer to furnish complete information on all the 10 points by allowing only information on six points.

Hence he submitted before the Commission that the Commission should direct the First Appellate Authority as well as the SPIO to furnish the remaining information withheld from him so far.

The DGP, Assam submitted that on receipt of the appeal from Shri Baruah, he perused the appeal petition and directed the SPIO to furnish information on six points out of the 10 points as stated by the appellant. He stated that he had taken into account the statement of the appellant in his petition dated 19.9.07 about the disclosures of information in the Assembly by the Government in reply to the question by Shri P.K. Mahanta, MLA in the last budget session of the Assam Assembly and as such he observed in his decision on the appeal that whatever information has already been shared by the Government and IGP (SB) in the answers to the Assembly questions and the statements if any to the press could be given to the appellant also.

He further stated that the IGP (SB) who is handling the subject of the rehabilitation of surrendered militants was asked to furnish information as sought in the first petition dated 21.5.07 of Shri Baruah and the IGP (SB) furnished the information relating to the six points only and sought protection under section 24 (4) of the RTI Act exempting disclosure of information relating to the Special Branch and also expressed his inability to furnish information relating to the number of weapons deposited by the surrendered militants as such disclosures would endanger the lives of the surrenderees and the lives of their families who are very often targeted after such surrenders of arms.

He further stated that the IGP(SB) also cited the grounds of endangering the lives of the surrenderees and their families if any details relating to incentives paid against surrender weapons / ammunitions was disclosed under the RTI Act. Regarding the total amount of rehabilitation assistance paid so far, the IGP (SB) informed him that the revised rehabilitation scheme introduced effective from 1st April 2005 will get rehabilitation assistance only after 3 years . i.e. only after 1st April 2008. Relating to total outstanding amount payable to banks and financial institution in respect of 100 % margin money scheme for surrendered militants introduced in 1992 the DGP stated that all the records pertaining to 100 % margin money scheme were maintained exclusively by Home Department, Government of Assam.

He pointed out that as per section 24(4) of the RTI Act the Government exempted the Intelligence Branch as Security Organisation from the purview of RTI Act, 2005.However, on appeal from the appellant he allowed information relating to six points out of ten points raised by the appellant.

The SPIO submitted that there was a delay in informing the appellant as he was under the impression that the Special Branch being under the exempted category by the Government notification the information sought by the appellant should not be given as the Special Branch alone deals with the matter relating to rehabilitation of surrendered militants. However on receipt of the order of the First Appellate Authority (the DGP, Assam) he provided information relating to six points except point no 2, 3, 7 and 10. He regretted that there was delay in furnishing information to the appellant as he had to consult with the IGP (SB) in this regard.

Observation of the Commission
The Commission after hearing the parties in appeal and taking into account all the relevant factors involved in the appeal observed the following:
  1. The SPIO failed to give information within the stipulated time. Moreover in his reply to the appellant rejecting the request of the appellant for information he did not mention the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and the particulars of the appellate authority as required under section 7(8) of the Act.
  2. The Special Branch of Assam Police functions under the overall control of the Director General of Police, Assam. Its affairs are not insubordinate to the control and direction of the Director General of Police. However where it operates under the separate budgetary provision and in matters relating to intelligence, security, source money etc. the Special Branch would come within the exclusion as notified by the Government under section 24(4) of the Act.
  3. The policies regulating the surrender of militants are open policies of the government to encourage the militants to come overground eschewing the path of violence and there is nothing secret about them. It may be of course that a few details of surrenderees need to be kept secret in the interest of their safety and successful implementation of the polices. The public authorities, in the true spirit of surrender policies, often come out with the news of surrender by arranging public functions and holding media briefing. The photographs of the surrenderees and their addresses along with public authorities, the details of the weapons surrendered are frequently seen in the electronic and print media. Therefore information which the appellant sought is already available in some form or the other to the public and it cannot be denied to him.
  4. The appellant did not seek the information from the Special Branch which is a notified organization under section 24(4) of the Act, but from the Director General of Police who is the head of the State Police Force and his organization has not been notified under that section of the Act. So it cannot be denied to the appellant under that section of the Act.
  5. Information denied to the appellant relating to the points 2 (number of weapons deposited by the surrendered militants) 3 ( total amount paid for the surrendered weapons) and 7 (total amount of rehabilitation assistance paid) is in no way likely to endanger the life and safety of the surrenderees and they are already in the public domain. So this set of information will have to furnished to the appellant in the format he wants except in matter of information on point 2 in which the total weapons of all types may be given year wise instead typewise as the public authority feels that providing typewise details of weapons may create some operational problems.
  6. Total outstanding amount payable to the banks and financial institutions for 100% margin (point 10 in the application) many is not available with the public authority and it is maintained by the Home Department. So furnishing information on this point does not arise.
Decisions of the Commission
The Commission on the basis of its observations decided to direct the public authority and the SPIO under section 19(8) (a) of the Act:
  1. To furnish information on 3 points i.e. 2,3 and 7 to the appellant by 11.2.2008.
  2. The Commission also let off the SPIO without imposing penalty under section 20(i) of the Act as his act of delay in responding to the petitioner was not deliberate, but on account of genuine confusion on the operation of the provisions of section 8 & 24 of the Act.
  3. The Secretary of the Commission will place this appeal file before the State Chief Information Commissioner on 11.2.08 for further orders.


Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Sd/ (Dr. B K Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Memo No SIC/KP(M) 109/2007 Dated January 11, 2008

CC:
1. The Director General of Police, Assam.
2. The IGP (A), Assam
3. The IGP(SB), Assam
4. Shri T.L. Baruah, IAS (Retd) 12, Bye Lane, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-24
5. The Commissioner & Secretary, Home Department.
6. The DIPR, Dispur, Guwahati.
7. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan.
8. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam