NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission ( CIC ) has disposed of an appeal against refusal of the Election Commission to furnish information sought by an RTI applicant regarding dissent expressed by election commissioner Ashok Lavasa over clean chits given by EC in model code violation complaints filed against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah during 2019 Lok Sabha poll campaign.The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.07.2019 had denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. It has been consistently articulated by the respondent that in view of the provision contained in the RTI Act, 2005, that requires only information and records that are available to any public authority to be shared through RTI, as also the confidentiality of the discussions held in the ECI, further details could not be furnished. On being queried by the Commission, if a similar reply could be provided to the Parliament, the respondent replied in the affirmative.The same stand was taken at subsequent levels of appeal. The CIC finally heard the appeal via video conference due to lockdown on account of COVID 19 pandemic. It was articulated that in view of the provision contained in the RTI Act, 2005, as also the confidentiality of the discussions held in the ECI, further details could not be furnished.The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.03.2020 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the information applied for contains extensive references to inputs received by the ECI from field officers including the identity of such officers. Any disclosure of aforesaid poses a certain risk to the safety of such officers. Secondly, the information sought for by the Appellant and the inputs relied therein is in aid of law enforcement which is confidential in nature. In any event, there is no prejudice caused neither to the Appellant nor to the public at large since all final decisions taken by the ECI based on inputs received are published in the public domain. Therefore, it was submitted that the information sought for is clearly exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (g) of the Act.Citing the reference made by Supreme Court in CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), it was held as under “information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety.Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer-books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act.”Accordingly, CIC in its decision disposing of the appeal, held that “keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter”.