The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagjit Pal Singh Virk vs Union of India & Anr. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that Annual Confidential Reports (“ACRs”) of the persons in the 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.
Brief Facts:
This petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) rejecting the Petitioner’s RTI application.
The Petitioner is a commander in the Indian Navy currently posted at Kochi. He was called for an interview for promotion to the post of Captain in 2014, 2015, and 2016 but was not promoted. To know the progress report of the service, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “RTI Act”). The Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”) of the Indian Navy refused to provide the desired information.
Procedural History:
The first appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority of the Ministry of Defence. The said appeal upheld the decision of the CPIO, Indian Navy. The Petitioner then preferred a second appeal to the CIC, which was also rejected. Hence, the present Appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Petitioner was entitled to know his marks, which were awarded to him as he was not promoted.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the Petitioner had already challenged the decision of non-grant of promotion to him before the Armed Forces Tribunal (“AFT”) and the same was dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that the data being sought was related to the promotion and appraisals to the Petitioner which could include the ACRs and other sensitive information relating to the other candidates, who were considered for promotion. These records, as per the CIC, had been held to be sensitive information and could have various ramifications in the security interest of the country.
It further perused both the orders of AFT and the Supreme Court and noted that relevant records of the Review Promotion Board had been produced before both AFT as also the Supreme Court. Further, the CPIO had taken the stand that copies of the ACR cannot be provided and only grading given by IO, RO, and SRO can be provided only 3 years after the retirement, as also in the larger public interest. Relying on Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Appeal No. 7631/2002), it reiterated that the entries of ACR need not be communicated to military officers as their position is different from civil, judicial, police, or any other State service.
The decision of the Court:
It was held that the information sought in this petition was not liable to be disclosed, owing to the nature of the information i.e., relating to senior personnel in the Navy. The CIC’s order did not warrant any interference. The writ petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed.
Case Title: Jagjit Pal Singh Virk vs Union of India & Anr.
Case No: W.P.(C) 5052/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sahu and Mr. Sameet Sharma.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
