Dominic Simon vs Central Public Information Officer And Anr

Vibhu Bakhru, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 05.05.2017 (hereafter “the impugned orderâ€) passed by the

Central Information Commission (hereafter “the CICâ€), whereby the CIC has rejected the appeals preferred by the petitioner under Section 19(3)

of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter “the Actâ€​).

The petitioner also prays for an order: (i) declaring that “the International Indian Schools in Saudi Arabia come under the purview of the RTI

Act, 2005â€​; and (ii) directing the respondents to disclose the information sought by the petitioner.

The petitioner was the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the International Indian Schools, Saudi Arabia, which, the petitioner claims is a

network of ten schools affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter “the CBSEâ€). The petitioner alleges that the said

schools were being run and managed by the Embassy of India in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he

was compelled to resign from his post on the basis of certain allegations made by the unknown persons.

In the aforesaid context, the petitioner sent an e-mail dated 01.11.2015 to the Indian Embassy at Saudi Arabia seeking certain information. The said

e-mail reads as under:

“Sir,

Kindly provide me copy of any complaints and it supporting documents received at the mission or any employees of the mission and any

action taken report on such matters against the Chairman/managing Committee of International Indian Public School Riyadh from 01 -

May-2015 Till Date.

regardsâ€​

The petitionerâ€s request for information was declined by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Embassy of India on the ground that the

International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia do not come under the purview of the Act and, therefore, cannot share the information as

sought under the Act. The petitionerâ€s appeal to the First Appellate Authority (hereafter “the FAAâ€) against denial of such information was also

rejected by an order dated 04.01.2016.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the FAA, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, which was dismissed by the

CIC vide the impugned order. The CIC held that the disclosure of official communications with the Saudi Government would impinge upon the friendly

relations with the foreign country and, thus, the information sought by the petitioner was exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act.

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is affirmed that all the International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are

directly controlled by the Saudi Ministry of Education through a set of (i) Organizing Rules and (ii) the Charter of International Indian Schools in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is affirmed that since more than three million Indians are residing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and education in Saudi

Arabia is expensive, Saudi Arabian authorities have issued licences to run ten International Indian Schools, which are located in nine cities in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. These schools are affiliated to CBSE.

It is also affirmed that the Indian Embassy of the Indian Government does not shoulder any administrative or financial responsibility with regard to

the said schools. It is stated that the said schools are run by financial contribution of the members of the Indian community. The schools are managed

by a Higher Board (hereafter “the HBâ€) and the Managing Committee of the International Indian Schools in Saudi Arabia. It is stated that the

Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia has been given the status of “Patron†as a special gesture by the Saudi Authorities. It is stated that he has no

effective role to play and his status as a patron is merely symbolic. Based on the aforesaid status, he is also a Member of the Managing Committee. It

is stated that he can attend the meetings of the said Committee as an Observer but he has no voting right in the decisions of the said Committee. He

also has a right to nominate a person to attend the meetings as an Observer in his place.

In view of the above, the Indian International Schools located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cannot be considered as public authorities within the

definition of Section 2(h) of the Act as they are neither controlled nor funded by an appropriate government.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a circular issued by the Indian Embassy inviting applications for Members to be

nominated to the Managing Committee, as well as certain press releases made by the Embassy of India. The said circular and the press releases do

not advance the case of the petitioner as the Indian Ambassadorâ€s nominee also does not have any right to vote and merely acts as a nominee of the

Indian Ambassador.

The learned counsel also referred to the Inspection Report by the CBSE, which states that the Managing Committee of the Schools is appointed

by the Ambassador to oversee the functioning of the school. However, the said statement is clearly incorrect in view of the affidavit affirmed on

behalf of the respondent.

The next question that falls for consideration is whether the information sought for by the petitioner would be exempt from disclosure under

Section 8(1)(a) of the Act as held by the CIC.

Section 8(1)(a) of the Act, reads as under:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,â€

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or

economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.â€​

The petitioner has restricted his prayer for information to only seek any complaint made against him.

It is once clear that if the information as sought for by the petitioner is available with the Indian Embassy, the same is not covered under any of the

provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. Plainly, the disclosure of the complaint made against the petitioner would not in any manner affect the

sovereignty and integrity of India. It is also difficult to accept that it would prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of

the State in any manner. There is also no material to indicate that such information would lead to an offence.

The CIC had observed that “the disclosure of the embassy files relating to the official communication with Saudi Govt. will impinge upon the

friendly relations with a foreign countryâ€. This observation is, plainly, unmerited. The question whether disclosure of any communication with a

Foreign State would adversely affect the relationship with that Foreign State would depend on the nature of the information and whether the same is

expected to be treated as confidential.

This is a case where the petitioner claims that he had been compelled to resign on account of a complaint. Nothing has been brought on record

which would indicate that this information, if available with the Indian Embassy at Saudi Arabia, is required to be kept confidential or would have a

material bearing on the relationship of India with the Saudi Authorities. In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent that it rejects the

petitionerâ€​s second appeal arising from his request for information made on 01.11.2015 (CIC/KY/A/2016/001204) is set aside.

The respondents are directed to disclose the complaints received against the petitioner provided that the same are available with the Indian

Embassy at Saudi Arabia. It is clarified that the Indian Embassy is not required to take any steps to secure this information from other sources; in

other words, the said complaint would be disclosed to the petitioner, only if the same is available with the Indian Embassy.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.