CIC notice to MoEF for not making Nayak Committee report

The Central Information Commission has issued a show cause notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for not making available the report of the Shailesh Nayak Committee, which had looked into issues raised by the states affected by CRZ rules in 2011, to an activist.
The first Caostal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification, issued in 1991, gave powers to the central government to restrict activities around the country's ecologically sensitive coastal belt which spans over 7,500 kms.
The notification was thereafter amended 25 times before being revised in 2011.
The government is facing criticism that changes brought into the new CRZ since 2014 almost run parallel to the process of a special committee set up to review the CRZ notification.

Shailesh Nayak, Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences, headed the committee which submitted its report early in 2015.
When activist Kanchi Kohli, associated with Centre for Policy Research, Namati Environment Justice Programme, sought a copy of the report and file notings through RTI, the MoEF said it was 'in submission with the Minister and cannot be provided'.

Kohli said the report "must have analysed the errors and inconsistencies" of the CRZ notifications, without examining which seven amendments were notified since January 2015, facilitating heavy constructions, coastal roads etc.
It is not possible to discuss, question and determine if these amendments have any scientific, administrative or legal basis, the activist said.

Acharyulu said the sustainability of development in
coastal zones is a serious concern.
"In this perspective, sustaining common use areas like beaches and creeks and access to the shore for everyday occupations is gradually becoming a challenge for many coastal communities. When these aspects are analysed, discussed and reported by an expert committee, there appears no justification in refusing the disclosure of report," he said.
The Information Commissioner said the CPIO did not even mention exact grounds under Section 8(1) for denial.
"If the report has discussed the objectives of CRZ, they should have disclosed the report before initiating process of amendment to the CRZ. It is the duty of MoEF to justify relaxations made without considering 'report'... .

"The suppression of Shailesh Nayak report while issuing successive amendments gives rise to many suspicions, which need to be cleared. Copy of report could have been given saying it is pending for approval," he said.
Terming the rejection of RTI application as "arbitrary", the Information Commissioner said, "The appellant has established the public interest in its disclosure saying that the refusal to make public the Shailesh Nayak Committee report and its proceedings could lead to a situation which will generate an unequal CRZ law as coastal expanses causing steady adverse impact on environment."
He said the Commission reiterates its order that each Minister is a public authority and directs the office of Minister for Environment and Forests considering his principal secretary as CPIO to provide certified copy of the report, file notings, minutes and correspondence of the committee, from the file held by them, along with latest action taken.

"The Commission holds that the public authority cannot invent a new defence or exemption such as 'the report is under submission', 'file is pending consideration' and 'unless approved it cannot be given' etc which are not available under RTI Act, 2005, such an illegal refusal will amount to denial of information which would invite penal proceedings under Section 20 of RTI Act, 2005," he said while issuing a show cause notice as to why penalty be not imposed.