An RTI Request for the Fisheries Negotiation Files
You head the Legal and Consular Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A journalist has filed a request under the Right to Information Act for fourteen documents: (i) draft minutes of three rounds of Sri Lanka–India fisheries talks, including a working paper listing possible catch limits; (ii) an internal legal memorandum on the 1974 agreement ceding Katchatheevu and on the 1976 arrangement on fishing rights; (iii) a letter from a foreign embassy about a detained vessel; and (iv) four routine administrative circulars on office procedure.
The statutory clock is running. The Navy has written that release of (i) would “prejudice operational coordination”. The Minister's office wants a blanket refusal “in the national interest”. The Indian High Commission has asked informally what will be released. Parliament's oversight committee is watching, and an election is expected within a year.
1. Classify the fourteen documents into release, partial release and withhold, justifying each class using the exemptions available to a public authority and the principle of severability.
Read the worked answer
Method. Take each document, identify the specific exemption claimed, state the harm that would flow from release, and then test whether the harm is serious and identifiable rather than speculative. Finally apply severability: redact the harmful part and release the rest. A blanket refusal fails on all three steps and is the most likely outcome to be reversed on appeal.
(iv) Routine circulars – release in full. No exemption applies; withholding them while refusing on the rest would undermine the credibility of the whole response.
(ii) Internal legal memorandum on the 1974 and 1976 agreements – release, with caution. Published law and historical treaty material are not confidential. However, if the memorandum contains advice on a live negotiating position, sever that section and release the historical analysis. Cite the deliberative-process exemption only for the severed part.
(i) Draft minutes and the catch-limit working paper – partial release. Published positions are defensible; the working paper is not, because it contains unadopted options. Release the agreed record of who attended and what was discussed in principle; sever the numerical options and any reference to a fallback position, with a stated harm: premature disclosure would freeze the negotiating space and disadvantage Sri Lanka in the next round.
(iii) Embassy letter on a detained vessel – withhold, temporarily. Consular protection of an identified national is a recognised ground; a third-party privacy and safety harm is concrete, not speculative. Attach a date, e.g. release on resolution of the case.
Naval objection. “Prejudice to operational coordination” is a conclusion, not a harm. Ask the Navy for a specific, one-paragraph statement of the harm; without it, the exemption will not survive appeal.
2. Draft a reply to the requester of no more than 100 words that would survive an appeal to the Right to Information Commission.
Read the worked answer
Dear Sir/Madam,
Your request dated [date] is acknowledged. Documents in category (iv) are released in full and enclosed. Category (ii) is released with one section severed under the deliberative-process exemption; the severed section records advice on a current negotiating position. Category (i) is released in part; the numerical options in the working paper are withheld because disclosure would prejudice Sri Lanka's position in ongoing bilateral negotiations. Category (iii) is withheld while the consular case is unresolved and will be released on conclusion. You may appeal this decision to the Designated Officer within fourteen days and thereafter to the Right to Information Commission.
[Name, Designation, Date]
Why this survives appeal: it responds to each category rather than refusing wholesale; it names an exemption and a harm for each refusal; it offers severance, which shows the authority applied the least restrictive means; it commits to a future release date; and it states the appeal route, which the Commission checks first. It avoids the phrase “national interest” standing alone, which is not an exemption and reads as an admission that no specific ground exists.
3. The Indian High Commission asks informally what will be released. How should you respond, and what must you avoid?
Read the worked answer
Respond on procedure, not on content, and do it in writing. Tell them: the request is being processed under the Act; the response will be published to the requester and, in practice, to the public; documents concerning the bilateral talks will be released in part, with negotiating options severed; and the Ministry would welcome their view on whether any document discloses information they shared in confidence, which would be considered on its merits.
Why this framing: it preserves the statutory process, keeps the relationship intact, and converts an awkward enquiry into a legitimate third-party consultation, which is exactly the mechanism the Act contemplates. It also puts their concerns on the file – useful if the matter is appealed.
Avoid:
- Any assurance of a specific outcome (“nothing will be released”). That is an informal estoppel; if you then release, you have damaged credibility for nothing.
- Sharing the documents with them before the requester. That is a prior disclosure that defeats the purpose of the Act and will be the centre of the appeal.
- Letting the conversation happen by telephone only. Unrecorded assurances become disputed recollections.
- Treating the enquiry as an instruction. The Act binds the public authority, not a foreign mission, and the file should say so in neutral language.