[What was finally sent to Mr Habibullah and the other ICs] Dear Mr Habibullah (cc: all Central Information Commissioners, for information as it involves contempt of court in WP(C) 7604/2009 in Delhi High Court)
I am writing this letter to you in your private capacity, as I am given to understand that you have joined the World Bank w.e.f 01 July 2010. [source http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22634909~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html ] I am shocked that you have passed an order in the case of one Dr. Raja Muzaffar Bhat versus Border Security Force [http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2010_000155_M_37194.pdf] directing that information is to be supplied by Armed Forces to persons from J&K. It is pertinent that your decision was delivered on 02-July-2010 and was on a direct email complaint to you sent from J&K and received on 04-April-2010. I draw your attention to section 1(2) of the RTI Act. The RTI Act "extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir." As such I submit that Dr. Bhat, despite the fact that he is a citizen of India, as a resident of J&K is barred from using the RTI Act 2005. Neither is the BSF required to supply information outside the jurisdiction to which the RTI Act applies. Conversely Indian citizens not resident in J&K are barred from using the J&K RTI Act or accessing information under it, as you well know. It is also true that since there is no extra-territorial scope explicitly mentioned in RTI Act, you cannot direct a Central Govt functionary to provide information to persons located in J&K. The consequence of such an interpretation would be that persons from the Pakistani or Chinese controlled portions of J&K would similarly apply in RTI against "human right violations" of Indian Army, and being within what India cannot deny as part of J&K must be similarly given information. It is also pertinent that the person concerning whom information was sought (Mohd Ashraf Yattoo) was an employee of the J&K State Govt to whom the RTI Act 2005 does not extend and was also presumably resident in J&K. The history of Dr Bhat's RTI travails in J&K are available on the CIC website [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Articles/rti_act_in_jandk.htm] It is noteworthy from this that Dr Bhat is relying on a letter from you to him conveying that CIC has jurisdiction over Central government organisations in J&K. The reasoning for his, however, is not in public domain. If my information concerning the status of your present assignment with World Bank is incorrect, and you are still discharging your duties as Chief Information Commissioner of India (excluding J&K), I request you to kindly immediately set up a Full Bench, ie. each and every member of the body defined in 12(1) of RTI Act, to review this decision on such an important question of law. I am also circulating this email to all other Information Commissioners for information considering the question/s of law involved and previous decisions of this Commission [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-05102009-05.pdf], [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-08102009-10.pdf] [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05042007_05.pdf] [http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC-PublicViews/jk1_inf.htm] etc. There is also a stay order concerning part of this from the Delhi High Court in WP(C) 7604/2009 which is still pending. On the last occasion on which I sent you such an email seeking review of your decision, you ignored it, and the Delhi High Court upheld my view with considerable force. I request you to reconsider this decision too considering the national interest and the CONTEMPT OF COURT involved in your order especially since the next date of the court is on 6.July.2010 when the court will consider this issue based on affidavit of DoPT. However, the court is not considering the aspect of whether persons in J&K can apply for information located in India. Yours sincerely Sarbajit Roy B-59 Defence Colony New Delhi-110024
