Disclose inquiry proceedings in the death of naval aviator:CIC

The CIC today directed the Navy to disclose the Board of Inquiry proceedings into the death of Lt Cdr Rahul Nair during an airshow in 2010,while admonishing its official for "cavalier attitude" in preparing its submission.
In stern observations, Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha, who rejected the plea for exemption on grounds of national security, said it appears "that attempt has been made to protect the interest of defaulters and that certainly does not outweigh the interest of the soldier who has lost his life in such an accident".
Sinha questioned how the Navy, while objecting to the disclosure of inquiry proceedings, court resort to reproducing "verbatim" the previous submissions by other CPIOs and comments of Defence Ministry in separate cases.

Navy which was objecting to the disclosure of proceedings on the grounds of national security has used comments of Defence Ministry and Indian Air Force in separate cases without quoting, Sinha said.
"...The phrase Air Force has been replaced by Indian Navy in all such instances. This demonstrates cavalier attitude of the CPIO in preparing the counter submissions. CPIO has even ignored the fact that, submissions in the aforementioned case were given in regard of the Indian Air Force and its entire fleet of transport since the year 1990...," Sinha said.
The Information Commissioner pointed out that in the said case it is a specific accident that happened at a flying display event organised by Civil Aviation Ministry to mark recognition of Indian civil aviation sector.

The case relates to plea of Cdr R M Nair who wanted to know the circumstances of the tragic accident, and its board of inquiry records, which led to the death of his son Rahul during the air show in which he was performing in a Kiran MK-II aircraft.

But Navy rejected it citing national security as a reason and section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act which exempts disclosure of such information.
"National security is a ground which has to be corroborated with tenable indicators of compromise; the phrase 'National Security' per se is not an explanation. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act has to be scrutinised well before its application and there is no singular rule to do the same," Sinha, a former intelligence officer, said.

He said the case relates to one aircraft the inventory of which has been completely withdrawn from the Navy.
Sinha said it is amply clear that disclosure of operational preparedness vis-a-vis an aircraft which is no longer brought in action by the Navy should not have any bearing on national security or any conceivable effect on the operation strategies of the force.
"Application of 8(1)(a) is rejected as prima-facie it appears that attempt has been made to protect the interest of defaulters and that certainly does not outweigh the interest of the soldier who has lost his life in such an accident," Sinha said.

He said CPIO should keep in mind that a mere claim of exemption under any of the provisions of section eight or nine of the RTI Act will not absolve the public authority of its responsibility to further the cause of transparency, the premise on which the RTI Act was perceived.
The Information Commissioner directed the Navy to provide a copy of Board of Inquiry proceedings as well as all available, related and connected documents to the air crash as sought in RTI application.