New Delhi, February 17 The Central Information Commission has upheld the Ministry of Home Affairs' decision to deny information sought under the Right to Information Act regarding properties identified as "enemy property," stating that disclosure could hinder an ongoing investigation.
Assets left behind by individuals who have acquired citizenship of Pakistan and China, primarily between 1947 and 1962, are classified as "enemy properties."
In an order in Hindi, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal agreed with the position of the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which prohibits disclosure if it would "impede the investigation process."
The applicant had requested details about a man's enemy properties.
"...according to the records available in your office, in which year did Abdul Saeed Barrister, son of Abdul Qadir, resident of Gonda, leave India for Pakistan? Please provide copies of the relevant records," the applicant said.
The applicant had also sought information on "which properties of Abdul Saeed Barrister have been declared as enemy property" and copies of correspondence exchanged with the Gonda district administration for declaring those properties as enemy property.
The Central Public Information Officer had earlier rejected the RTI request, stating that the records were confidential.
"It is to be noted that since the information sought is a confidential document, it is not eligible to be disclosed under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005," the reply from the Custodian of Enemy Property of India said.
However, during the hearing, the respondent submitted that the matter was under examination under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and that providing the information at this stage could adversely affect the investigation.
Agreeing with these submissions, the commission observed that "such information, disclosure of which would affect the investigation, arrest, or prosecution, cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act," and concluded that no further intervention was warranted.
