23 September 2006: MN files an appeal to the appellate authority in MEA. In his appeal, Dhar says that "appropriate" is a qualitative term and can vary according to situation and persons looking into the matter. “Plainly put, I wanted to know whether the matter was pursued at a higher (say ministerial) level, or such a matter of national importance was dealt with by our Embassy by issuing note verbales.” He also points out that “at the time of Netaji's disappearance, the foreign State in question was USSR, which does not exist anymore. Therefore, the question of India's relations with the USSR being affected does not arise with reference to Clause 8(1) (a) & (f).” However, the appellate authority also refuses to divulge information taking recourse to Section 8(1)(a) and (i). Moreover, he opines that the “Information sought does not constitute an "information" as defined in the RTI Act, 2005 as it seeks anecdotal reply.” |