Define national security for better transparency, urge ex-security brass

The government must define “national security” as the lack of clarity on the subject is used as a ruse by government departments to routinely deny information sought under Right to Information Act, argued former Army and R&AW officials here on Monday.

These ex-officers, some of whom have recently acted as “whistle blowers” to expose corruption in their erstwhile organisations, have sought the government to explain what is national security?

This was an important take away from the day-long deliberations on national security and people’s  right to information, attended among others by Satyananda Mishra, Chief  Information Commissioner of  Central Information Commission (CIC), Maja Daruwala, Director CHRI,  Morton Halperin, Open Society Foundations and Sandra Coliver of Open Society Justice Initiative. 

Mishra concurred with the view that information officers took cover under “national security” to decline routine  information. The CIC  said Indian war films show national security linked to a degree of patriotism. “Perception is, if leaked it would amount to treason. National Security is an easy alibi to deny access”, Mishra added.

He said Ministry of Home Affairs routinely classified subjects as critical to national security . “Most decisions on national security are not reasoned out and border on a tendency to deny information by defence or home ministry”, Mishra said.

The CIC said all documents now need to be declassified but not done out of “sheer laziness”. He said information cannot be sought from organisations included in the second schedule unless the information is about human rights violations or pertaining to corruption.