J&K Law Department Upholds Denial of Information on Cabinet Sub-Committee Report
Srinagar: The Jammu & Kashmir government has dismissed an appeal seeking disclosure of the status and timelines of the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s report on reservation, maintaining that the details fall under the ambit of confidential cabinet papers.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs upheld the order issued by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), citing relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, as well as orders from the Central Information Commission.
The appeal was filed by Sheikh Mohammed Imran, a Peoples Conference leader, who had challenged the denial of information by the department.
On August 5, 2024, the CPIO had rejected the request under various provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
“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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the CPIO’s order is upheld,” the FAA stated, according to a copy obtained by Kashmir News Observer.
The FAA clarified that the RTI Act permits disclosure of cabinet decisions only after they are finalized. Since the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s deliberations are ongoing, no final decision has been notified.
“The proviso to Section 8(1)(i) allows disclosure only after a matter is finalized. The Cabinet Sub-Committee’s deliberations are still ongoing, and no final decision has been issued,” the order said.
Justifying the refusal to provide information on status updates and timelines, the FAA added: “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 further noted that the term “under examination” refers to documents being vetted, and revealing specifics could risk interference with the process. “No contradiction or misleading information exists; the response safeguards statutory confidentiality,” the order concluded.
