Dear all,
Readers may recall my mail from yesterday about the manner in which the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) refused access to information about the deaths of 19 individuals caused during their operations in Silger-Chintalnar area of Bijapur district in Chhattisgarh.
On 05/07/2012 we had filed another RTI application (first attachment) seeking the following information from the CRPF relating to the Silger-Chintalnar incident:
“ (i) The title of laws (Central and/or State) under which the CRPF is authorised to conduct operations, armed with weapons, in Chhattisgarh;
(ii) A clear photocopy of any document or record authorising CRPF personnel to conduct operations, armed with weapons, in the State of Chhattisgarh;
(iii) A clear photocopy of any warrant or order or any official document authorising CRPF personnel to open fire with their firearms during operations in the State of Chhattisgarh;
(iv) A list of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)/instructions/guidelines/communications issued till date by the CRPF to its personnel conducting operations in Chhattisgarh regarding the use of firearms. Please indicate the topic/subject-matter, date of issuance and the designation of the signatory officer;
(v) A clear photocopy of each of the SOPs/instructions/guidelines/communications referred to at para #(iv) above;
(vi) The total number of CRPF personnel who participated in the operations conducted at Silger and Chintalnar, Chhattisgarh (please provide specific figures for each operation); and
(vii) The total number of bullets fired by CRPF personnel during the operations conducted at Silger and Chintalnar, Chhattisgarh (please provide specific figures for each operation).”
The annexures to this application were the same as that attached to our previous RTI application.
The CRPF PIO’s response:
The Public Information Officer (PIO) sent a reply (second attachment) which was similar word for word to the reply to our previous RTI application:
“2. After careful consideration of your application on the subject, it is intimated that as per Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Police Forces as listed in the Second Schedule of the Act have been given qualified exemption from the Act in so far as the allegations of other than those connected with Human Rights Violations and Corruption are concerned. From the facts of the case mentioned in your application cited above, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract ingredients to constitute the allegations of corruption. Moreover, information sought are general in nature, Hence this department is not liable to provide the information sought by you.
3. Further it is also intimated that the information/documents sought by the you [sic] relates to security/operational instructions which cannot be divulged to civilians in the normal course under Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act."
What is problematic with this reply?
In my last mail had given four reasons as to why the PIO’s reply is problematic. All those reasons apply to this case of rejection also. I would like to point out additional problem areas specific to the PIO’s reply to our second RTI application:
i) In this RTI application we have only sought factual information such as laws and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) under which CRPF operates in Chhattisgarh. The other factual information is about the number of personnel who participated in the operations and the total number of bullets fired. It is difficult to understand how the disclosure of this information would jeopardize the ability of CRPF to carry out its work ordinarily as a security organisation.
ii) The characterization of the queries as being general in nature shows that ‘careful consideration’ of the kind claimed by the PIO did not go into the decision-making process connected with this RTI applciation. We have sought very specific factual information. Instead stock replies are being sent misusing the exemption granted under Section 24.
iii) Further it is difficult to understand how disclosure of the names of laws, rules and regulations, number of personnel and bullets used would jeopardize national security that the CRPF seeks to protect by invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
The responses of the CRPF clearly show that they are not willing to release factual information in support of their their claim of having opened fire in self-defence. I request all readers to file RTI applications with the CRPF, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the State Government of Chhattsigarh seeking information about all aspects of the Silger-Chintalnar incident and its aftermath. This is one of the ways of building pressure on the Governments and their agencies to come clean on this unfortunate incident.
Thanks
Sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
Fax: +91-26864688
Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
Alternate Email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org