 Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Sept 10: Amid questions from different quarters over the status of the cabinet sub- committee’s report on reservation, the J&K government has dismissed an appeal filed against the order passed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to deny information about it.
The First Appellate Authority of the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs has upheld the order passed by the CPIO, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgements and order passed by the Central Information Commission.
The information seeker Sheikh Mohammed Imran, Peoples Conference leader, had contested the denial of information by Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
The CPIO, on August 5, 2024, had denied the information, citing different provisions of the RTI.
“The disposal of the RTI application by the CPIO vide order dated 05.08.2025 is well founded and well-reasoned and is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and as such the appeal The First Appellate Authority of the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs has upheld the order passed by the CPIO, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgements and order passed by the Central Information Commission.
In the order, the FAA has said that RTI Act allows disclosure of cabinet decision only after decision is finalised and cabinet sub-committee’s deliberations are ongoing.
“The proviso to Section 8(1)(i) allows disclosure only after the decision is complete and the matter is finalized. It is submitted that the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s deliberations are ongoing, and no final decision has been notified,” it said.
Justifying denial of information about status updates and timelines of CSC report, the FAA said,” Therefore, the entire set of documents, including status updates and timelines, falls within the ambit of “cabinet papers” as they are integral to the deliberative process.”
The FAA said that “Under examination” implies receipt for vetting, but specifics could expose timelines, risking interference.“ No contradiction or misleading exists; the response protects statutory confidentiality,” reads the order. | 