Army refuses to share details of mutilated soldiers at LoC

May 26, 2013 04:11 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 10:57 pm IST - New Delhi:

Army has refused to make public under RTI Act, details of soldiers whose bodies were mutilated in skirmishes with Pakistani Army or infiltrators along the Line of Control during the last five years, even though such details have been given by Defence Minister A.K. Antony in Rajya Sabha.

Three months after the application was filed, Army cited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to refuse the information without giving any reason for denial, which is mandatory whenever information is denied to an RTI applicant.

Giving complete details of an incident in which two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated, Mr. Antony had said, “On January 8, 2013, a Pak Border Action Team (BAT) ambushed our patrol party in Krishna Ghati, Mendhar Sector in which Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh and Lance Naik Hemraj were killed. Lance Naik Hemraj was found beheaded and both bodies were mutilated. In addition, their weapons were taken.”

In the above statement, the minister had placed on record complete class of information including date of incident, names of soldiers, place of incident and nature of injury. When asked whether class of information which has been placed on the floor of Parliament can be denied to an RTI applicant, Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra said “absolutely not.”

Section 8(1)(a) allows to withhold “information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence”.

His views were supported by former Chief Information Commissioners Wajahat Habibullah and A.N. Tiwari, who said information which has been placed before Parliament is already in public domain and cannot be denied to an applicant.

Mr. Tiwari said even if it has been denied by a public authority, justifiable reasons should be given while withholding the information, and then CIC can take a view.

The Right to Information Act gives an applicant two separate provisions — complaint under section 18 which is filed for no receipt of information within mandatory 30 days and first appeal under section 19 where applicant gives reasons why an information should be disclosed — for raising his grievance before higher authorities in a public body.

Maj Gen Anil Mehta, the first appellate authority, wrongly treated the complaint filed by the applicant for non-receipt of information as First Appeal, thus giving him no chance to present his reasons as to why information should be disclosed.

Subsequent communications to his office citing this glaring error on part of a senior officer did not change the stand of the Army, which insisted that a “speaking order” has been given.

Former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said a first appeal can only be filed once an applicant receives some information from a public authority. A complaint for non-receipt of information cannot be treated as first appeal, he said.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.