The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has refused to disclose information relating to a purported Manipur government proposal to delete the nomenclature 'Any Kuki Tribes' from the Scheduled Tribes list, citing concerns that disclosure could aggravate inter-community tensions in the state, which has been hit by ethnic violence. Information Commissioner Ashutosh Chaturvedi has upheld the ministry's stand.
The RTI applicant, Michael Haokip, referred to a Manipur government letter dated July 25, 2024, which he claimed concerned a proposal to delete the nomenclature 'Any Kuki Tribes' from the state's ST list and correct 'Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribe' to 'Mizo'.
The applicant sought confirmation of whether the ministry had received the proposal, along with the date of receipt and the official file number.
He also sought details of the action taken on the proposal and whether it had been forwarded to the Registrar General of India (RGI) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) for concurrence.
He further sought copies of relevant communications and file notings, as well as the names and designations of officials handling the matter since July 2024.
In its reply dated June 24, 2025, the ministry said it was the nodal ministry responsible for deciding claims relating to the inclusion, exclusion and other modifications to the Scheduled Tribes list under Article 342 of the Constitution.
It said proposals recommended and justified by the concerned state government or Union Territory administration could be processed further, subject to concurrence from the RGI and NCST, before being considered for legislative amendment.
The ministry said disclosure during the examination and consultation process could exert "undue pressure and influence" on authorities and allow vested interests to interfere with independent decision-making.
It further said it had come across instances where disclosure of information regarding the notification of a community had led to violence.
"Such disclosure of information will have the potential to disturb public peace, tranquillity and encourage enmity between the communities," the CPIO said.
During the recent hearing, the ministry specifically submitted that the matter was sensitive "in view of the ethnic violence and prevailing law-and-order concerns in Manipur following developments concerning the Scheduled Tribe status of communities in the State".
It apprehended that premature disclosure of internal proposals, communications and deliberative records could "aggravate inter-community tensions", exert undue pressure on the authorities concerned and potentially lead to "disturbance of public order and incitement of offences".
The applicant contended that the CPIO's response was vague and failed to explain how basic administrative particulars, including the date of receipt, file number and names of officials, could be treated as information held in a fiduciary capacity. He also argued that the apprehensions about public order were general and speculative.
The commission said it was not persuaded that the public interest in disclosing substantive internal deliberations and communications outweighed the potential harm identified by the ministry.
The CIC also considered whether non-sensitive portions of the records could be disclosed after redaction under Section 10 of the RTI Act, but ruled out even the limited relief of providing redacted copies of the proposal and related action-taken notings.
(With inputs from PTI)
