Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, July 27: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), G R Sufi has said that Police Headquarters should make use of discretionary powers and authority under Section 8(1)(f) of the State Right to Information Act, 2009 very judiciously and with proper application of mind.
These observations have been made by the CIC in an appeal filed by R S Pathania against the orders passed by Ist Appellate Authority and PIO of Police Headquarters.
“No doubt this section has given protection to the authorities not to disclose information if it endangers the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purpose but such discretionary powers and authority have to be used judiciously and with proper application of mind”, Mr Sofi said.
The appeal was filed by Mr Pathania before the SIC after he was denied information by PIO and Ist Appellant Authority on total number and details of ‘protected’ people in J&K, who have been provided security cover with special reference to the secessionist, social, religious and mainstream leaders, who are not holding any constitutional/statutory post with the Union Government or the State Government, total number of security vehicles/ Government accommodations allotted to political people on security-related grounds and the policy, criteria, guidelines and parameters followed for providing security cover as well as security vehicles.
Taking an over all view, the Commission decided that it will be appropriate to restore back the matter to the first appellate authority with the direction to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant as well as to the PIO. “The 1st appellate authority may consider whether there is any bar in providing the total number of protected persons without identifying them and total number of vehicles, police and security staff etc engaged in this task”, the Commission said.
“We don’t hesitate to concede the 1st appellate authority’s submission that because of security scenario, it would be endangering life of protected persons if their names are disclosed, but there might be cases where security is provided not on account of intelligence inputs related to security reasons but because of protocol and official status”, Mr Sofi said, adding “the 1st appellant authority has to give reasons why even such information cannot be disclosed”.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel