New Delhi: When, in January 2018, former chief information commissioner R.K. Mathur directed the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to provide a “name/list of the private persons (who do not have any connection with the security) and who accompanied the Prime Minister on his international visits at public cost during 2014 to 2017″, it was seen by many as a bold decision.

Even the appellant, a Delhi-based Right to Information activist Neeraj Sharma, was pleasantly surprised. After all, Mathur had given the decision despite repeated attempts by the PMO to deny information about the dignitaries and businessmen who accompanied Prime Minister Narendra Modi on official trips abroad citing “security grounds”.

However, today, Sharma is sceptical about the decision. For not only did the PMO not provide the details as directed by the CIC, but it transferred the matter to the Ministry of External Affairs to avoid complying with it. Though Sharma filed a plea of non-compliance with the CIC when no information was forthcoming, without even calling him over for a hearing pertaining to non-compliance, Mathur, as the chief information commissioner, closed the matter on the grounds that the MEA had furnished the relevant information.

When on Thursday Mathur was sworn in as the first Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Ladakh, Sharma questioned the manner in which the case was handled. “For nearly a year, MEA was not even in the picture and only PMO handled the case. It was only after the CIC’s final order that the PMO passed on the file to MEA which also did not send me any reply, as it claims. However, though I complained to Mathur, without even giving me a hearing he closed the case. Then where is the justice?”

How non-compliance hearing undid all the good of the order

Interestingly, a look at the facts of the case is enough to explain how things went.

It was in July 2017 that Sharma sought the “list of CEOs of private business, owners or partners, private business officials, etc. who accompanied Prime Minister Narendra Modi to international visits”.

Also read: G.C. Murmu, Trusted Modi-Shah Aide and Now J&K’s First LG, Has a Controversial Record

Sharma had also asked for the “selection procedure” involved in shortlisting these business persons. He asked for “a certified copy of the note sheet indicating noting by PM, various officials, emails, letters, directions and/or instructions issued to the concerned authority or subordinate staff as a follow up action” to the selection of these people being selected to accompany the PM on his foreign tours.

‘Security grounds’

In its response, the PMO’s central public information officer had on September 1, 2017, stated that “while information regarding the PM’s foreign and domestic visits is available on PMO website – http://www.pmindia.gov.in, it may be noted that information regarding members of the delegations accompanying hon’ble PM on domestic and foreign tours cannot be disclosed on security grounds as the same in exempted from disclosure under relevant provisions of RTI Act, 2005″.

Not satisfied with the response, especially since it was silent on the “selection procedure”, Sharma, in his second appeal filed on September 29, 2017, complained that the information sought by him had “not been provided” and that the PMO officials were “deliberately delaying the response to his RTI application by giving an interim reply”.

In his order, Mathur recorded that the appellant had contended that “there is no provision in the RTI Act for giving interim reply”. Further, he noted that Sharma had complained that the “sought for information has not been furnished to him”.

Sharma also stated that if the information was not available with the respondent, they should not have kept the RTI application pending for such a long time.

Also read: CIC Directs PMO to Reveal Information on Private Persons Who Accompanied Modi on Foreign Trips

The chief information commissioner recorded that as per the appellant he had only been provided information on the first point raised by him and not the others.

No information on website

Sharma had submitted that he was informed by PMO that the list of CEOs of private business, owners or partners, private business officials etc. who accompanied Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his international visits was available on their website. However, Sharma said that when he looked up the website, he did not find any such information there.

Sharma also stated that information of members of the delegation accompanying the prime minister on domestic and foreign tours used to be made available on the website during the tenure of the former prime minister Manmohan Singh.

PMO’s contradictory views

In its response, the PMO stated that the delegation members are seen on TV channels and their names are mentioned in newspapers during the visit. In response to this, Sharma had asked what the security concerns were if the delegates could be seen on the media?

Also read: Centre Assured Information Commissioners Won’t be Downgraded, DoPT ‘Draft’ Suggests Otherwise

Sharma also stated that the visit of private delegation members was paid for by public money. Hence, their names and the procedure for their selection should be disclosed and made available to the public domain. He also clarified that he is not seeking details of the full delegation, including the accompanying diplomats and the personnel of the Special Protection Group.

In light of all these facts, the CIC upheld Sharma’s plea and ordered that the PMO provide him with the list of “private persons (who do not have any connection with the security)” and that the action be taken within 30 days of receipt of the order.

PMO moves file to MEA

However, as the PMO did not act on the order, Sharma said that he first filed a complaint of non-compliance with the CIC (Diary Number – 613168) on February 28, 2018. The compliance cell then sent a letter to the PMO on March 14, 2018, but still, there was no reply or information from it.

Thereafter Sharma remained in the dark about the developments and Mathur’s disposal of the case on July 31, 2018, without giving him a hearing. On October 1, 2018, Sharma wrote to Mathur stating that he had seen the September 4, 2018, non-compliance order on the CIC website when it was uploaded on the portal on September 28, 2018.

He noted that in the order, Mathur recorded that “respondent letter dated 05.02.2018 has informed the commission and appellant”. But, Sharma said, he had never received any reply from MEA.

`Did not receive reply, nor called for hearing’

Sharma also wrote to Mathur that he had not received the two letters dated February 14, 2018 and August 7, 2018 which the CPIO MEA claimed to have sent to him. Further, he expressed surprise that he was not called for the July 31, 2018 hearing.

Sharma expressed surprise at the manner in which these “records” were submitted and the non-compliance plea disposed of without the CIC even giving him a hearing. “I wanted to question the CPIO of MEA but was not even allowed to do so,” he lamented, adding that the case was brushed aside in a hush-hush manner.

What Mathur wrote in the non-compliance order

In the compliance order, the CIC recalled its main order of January 18, 2018, and its contents. It noted that the appellant made a complaint to the commission on February 28, 2018, regarding non-compliance of its order. Further it noted that the non-compliance issue was taken up with the respondent through a commission’s letter dated March 14, 2018.

Also read: Information Commissioners’ Tenures, Salaries Now Firmly in Centre’s Hands

In its discussion and observation, the commission noted that it “has on record that the respondent vide letter dated 05.02.2018 has informed the Commission and the appellant that the second appeal, RTI application and the decision of the Commission has been transferred to the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore, on 31.07.2018, the non-compliance issue was taken up with the CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs.”

The compliance order further stated that, “The Commission has on record that the CPIO, Ministry of Externa Affairs, vide letter dated 14.02.2018 has provided the information to the appellant. On perusal of letters dated 14.02.2018 and 07.08.2018 of the CPO, Ministry of External Affairs, it is observed by the Commission that directions of the Commission have been complied with.”

In his “decision”, Mathur wrote: “As the respondent and CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs has complied with the directions of the Commission, no further action is required and accordingly the matter is closed at Commission’s level. The non-compliance complaint is disposed of.”