The sensitive nature of armed forces personnel records and the larger public interest in maintaining their confidentiality under the RTI Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner - Jagjit Pal Singh Virk has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 24th May, 2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred as `CIC') rejecting the Petitioner's RTI application dated 18th October, 2018.

3. The Petitioner is a commander in the Indian Navy, who is currently posted at Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Kochi. He was called for an interview for promotion to the post of Captain in 2014, 2015 and 2016 but was not promoted.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that in order to know the progress report of the service, he filed an application dated 18th October, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter `RTI Act') seeking following information.

"Q1. Please provide the following details with respect to each promotion Board for which I was considered:

(a) ACR Marks

(b) Value judgement marks awarded.

Q2. Please provide the details of my profile (PP/PQ) from 09 years of service onwards (since commencement of PARB) till date.

Q3. Please provide the details of my profile for PARB in the year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 for both, prior and post expunging of ACR for the period 24 Aug 13 to 31 Jan 14.

Q4. Please provide details of my position in merit on following occasions. Please provide certified copy of merit list for each.

(a) Sea command board 2/11

(b) Selection for Sea Command PCT- Mar 2013

(c) PB 2B/14

(d) PB 2/15

(e) PB 2/16

(f) Review PB 2/17 (Merit with changed profile w.r.t PB 2B/14, PB 2/15 and PB 2/16)"

5. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Navy sent a reply on 4th December, 2018 refusing to provide the desired information. The stand of the CPIO in the reply is that the copy of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the persons in Armed Forces are confidential in nature and the same cannot be disclosed even after retirement. However, grading given by IO, RO and SRO can be only communicated after a period of 3 years from the date of retirement. The said stand is set out below:

"2. For Query 1 to 4 Your application dated 18 Oct 18, has been examined and it is intimated that the Hon'ble CIC vide its order dated 09 Mar 10 (Encl 1) has ruled that even a retired officer need not be supplied copies of ACRs. Hence, the copies of ACRs cannot be provided as the ACRs are confidential in nature. However, as per said CIC Order, grading given by IO, RO and SRO can be communicated to the applicant after a gap of 03 years from the date of retirement and hence you cannot be provided with the grading of IO/RO/SRO due to non-completion of mandatory gap of three years from the date of retirement. Moreover, disclosure of the same justifies no larger public interest. DoPT&T OM No. 10/20/2016-IR is also relevant in this regard; copy of the same is placed at Encl 2. "

6. The first appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Defence. The said appeal vide order dated 21st May, 2019 upheld the decision of the CPIO, Indian Navy. The Petitioner then preferred a second appeal to the CIC. The said appeal was also rejected vide order dated 24th May, 2019 with the following observations.

"From a perusal of the relevant case records and the written submissions of the CPIO dated 21.05.2021, it is noted that the CPIO was right in denying the information to the appellant. In his written submissions he had explained in detail as to why the information cannot be divulged and has stated that the sensitive nature of duties performed by the Armed Forces and in the overall security interest of the nation and the ramifications on the command and control structure of the armed forces and the specific peculiarities of the defence services, the Armed Forces have always been dealt with differently by the various courts of law including the Apex court even when dealing with issues of similar nature like merit lists, outcome of promotion and selection