Revealing information about the structural audits of the Bombay High Court would “endanger” the lives of judges and other officials, claimed the public information officer of the high court while refusing to reveal the details under the Right To Information (RTI).
Zoru Bathena, environmental activist, had last month filed an RTI application seeking copies of the last three structural audits conducted for the main and annexe buildings of the Bombay High Court, a heritage structure in South Mumbai.
Bathena had sought the information to show as a comparison in connection with the reconstruction of the 135-year-old reservoir at Malabar Hill in south Mumbai. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has said that the reservoir is old and beyond, hence it needs to be reconstructed. He said that they wanted to give examples of the HC building and the BMC's headquarters building, which are also over a century old but are being repaired and not reconstructed.
He said that he received information under the RTI regarding the structural audits of the BMC building, but he was refused the information by the HC.
"Information sought is exempted from disclosure for security purposes"
The PIO, in his reply rejecting the information, said that the information sought cannot be furnished as it has no relation with larger public activity or interest.
“The information sought is exempted from disclosure for security purposes. The information sought is also exempted as disclosure of the same would endanger the life or physical safety of the Hon'ble judges and officials of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,” the reply read.
“Furthermore, the information sought is held by the concerned department in fiduciary relationship,” the reply said, it added: “No larger public interest is demonstrated in your application. Hence, the information sought cannot be disclosed in view of exemption from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act.”
The activist will be filing an appeal against the refusal to provide information under the RTI. “(I) Shall certainly be filing an Appeal challenging this incorrect rejection of info,” Bathena said.
