Agreement with a foreign country is not confidential
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/01305
Dated: 5 March 2008
Shri A.M. Attar Vs Ministry of External Affairs
The Commission also sees no harm in providing the Appellant with a copy of the Agreement arrived at between the Government of India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as this is a public document. In case the Respondents have any problem in providing the Appellant a copy of it, they may revert back to the Commission and also the Appellant.
Central Information Commission
Shri A.M. Attar vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 7 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2007/01305
Dated: 7 Jan 2010
7. During the hearing, both the parties reiterated their contentions. However, the Respondent Public Authority who had earlier in their communication dated 25.03.2008 sought exemption under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005, at this stage sought exemption under section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act 2005. The earlier exemption sought under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 had already been dealt with on the previous occasion, hence the same need not be reiterated. However, the seeking of fresh grounds to justify non disclosure of information by the Respondent Public Authority does not provide additional merit to the case. More so, when the order dated 26.05.2008 had been passed after considering the contentions of the Respondent as submitted on 28.04.2008 and after a perusal of the Bilateral Agreement. It is observed by the Commission that no exemption under Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act 2005 was sought by the Respondent Public Authority even till 28.04.2008. Hence it is evident that this is at best only an afterthought on the part of the Respondent at this stage. The Respondents' only verbal contention during the hearing was that the disclosure of complete information pertaining to the said Bilateral Agreement could have adverse impact on the foreign relations of not only India but also diplomatic relations among the various Muslim nations whose delegates travel to the holy pilgrimage of Haj, and since the Agreement was information received in confidence from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, hence the disclosure of such information was unwarranted, according to the Respondent. However, interestingly no additional documents have been submitted by the Respondent at this stage to substantiate their contention or justifying the non furnishing of information despite clear directions of this Commission.
8. Since the impugned order dated 26.05.2008 was passed by the predecessor of this office upon perusal of the Bilateral Agreement, accordingly, the said document in question was once again directed to be produced before this Commission for reconsideration and examination of the same. After detailed study of the Bilateral Agreement on Arrangements & Bases of Haj Affairs between the Haj Affairs Delegation of the Republic of India and the Ministry of Haj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Commission confirms the opinion of the predecessor Information Commissioner that only certain part of the Agreement may at best be severed applying provisions of Section 10 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of the arguments and apprehension expressed by the Respondent about the damage to international relations, the part of the Clause Two of the Agreement which specifies the quota of the Indian Hajis qua the total population of the Muslims may be severed in order that no sensitive information may be disclosed in public which may have detrimental impact on the foreign relations between the various nations. Similarly the figures (data) depicting the number of Hajis in the Clause Four of the Agreement may also be severed from the information and exempted from disclosure. The remaining information in the Bilateral Agreement does not pertain to any sensitive data, as agreed by the Respondent also and the same should accordingly be provided to the Appellant within the 20th January 2010.
CIC/OK/A/2007/01305