Dhananjay wanted information about ‘expert opinion’ regarding a letter dated 23.5.2016, who the expert (psychiatrist or neurophysiologist) was, his education qualification, name of post held, department etc on a representation. The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act and First Appellate Authority has confirmed it.
Dhananjay earlier represented to the Prime Minister’s Office regarding increasing use of "invasive mind control chip implant" and "non-invasive electro-magnetic waves" in the field of medicine and their adverse effects on the person’s general behaviour. It was forwarded to the Science Department.
The issue involved a very important issue of right to integrity of one’s own person, internal autonomy and privacy which are significant part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, by expressing apprehensions about increasing use of "invasive mind control chip implant" and "non-invasive electro-magnetic waves" in the field of medicine and the adverse effects on the person’s general behaviour.
This will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals. Though excerpts of the opinion were furnished to the appellant, other details were denied using Section 8(1)(j), considering the information sought was ‘personal’, without giving any reasons or justification.
How the "names," details of "educational qualifications," and "name of post" with "department name" of the two experts, i.e. psychiatrist & neurophysiologist, could be personal information of those two experts? It is height of unreasonable and illegal denial. This response is unscientific and possible misuse of science and technology.
The PIO is under a duty to explain why he felt absence of public interest. There is a huge public interest in disclosing the complete opinion, names of opinion-givers, their education, experience and expertise along with designation in office to protect the privacy and other fundamental rights of the petitioner and all others who might be in similar situation.
The authority did not even discuss the complaint/grievance as reflected in appellants’ representation. The appellant contended: Because in these decades, the absolute mind control is possible with these “invasive mind control chip implant” and ‘non-invasive electro-magnetic waves.” This is just the weapon for non-invasive mind control over a large area using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves.
In scientific research, it shows that with ELF waves the human brain can be controlled with support of some scientific device or implantation. In the above process they cannot only store personal identification of person but are able to stimulate and manipulate the mind.
This is a magnetic field which applied to the Brain and that can alter people's sense of morality. The scientists have shown that they can alter people’s moral judgments simply by magnetically interfering with a certain part of the brain.
The studies have shown that the people's right evaluating the intentions of another person can easily be diverted and that the mind control technologies are available and "it is combination of few patented technology and microwave mind control technology is also one of them are given below.”
"German Patent No. DE10253433A1, Dated 27.05.2004; U.S. Patent No. 3,393,279 dated 16.07.1968; U.S. Patent No. 5,159,703 dated 27.10.1992; U.S. Patent No. 6,017,302 dated 25.01.2000; U.S. Patent No. 3,951,134 dated 20.04.1976; U.S. Patent No. 5,289,438 dated 22.02.1994; U.S. Patent No. 5,159,703 dated 27.10.1992; U.S. Patent No. 6,011,991 dated 04.01.2000; U.S. Patent No. 5,800,481 dated 01.09.1998; U.S. Patent No. 3,773,049 dated 20.11.1973; U.S. Patent Na. 5,675,103 dated 07.10.1997; U.S. Patent No. 5,507,291 dated 16.04.1996; U.S. Patent No. 7,350,522 dated 0 1.04.2008; and U.S. Patent No. 3,612,211 dated 12.10.1971. ....” Because the mind-altering mechanism is based on a subliminal carrier technology: the Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS), sometime called "S-quad" or "Squad."
The response of Dr M Mohanty, Scientist F, dated 23.5.2016, says “the experts have informed that no such technologies like ‘microwave based mind control technologies’ are available and it does not have any scientific merit to discuss further. After this response, he sought details of experts.
The Commission finds the apprehensions need to be answered and fear if any have to be removed with a comprehensive explanation including the information about experts.
Three judge bench of Supreme Court in Selvi v State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004, on May 5, 2010, (Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, R. V. Ravindran, and J.M. Panchal, JJ) held:
221. In our considered opinion, the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the `right against self-incrimination'. This is because the underlying rationale of the said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence. This Court has recognised that the protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses who are examined during an investigation.
The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible `conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue.” The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a `testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.
222. We are also of the view that forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of `substantive due process' which is required for restraining personal liberty. … It would also amount to `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms. Furthermore, placing reliance on the results gathered from these techniques comes into conflict with the `right to fair trial.' Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right against self-incrimination.’
In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place.
Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
There is alleged “increasing use of "invasive mind control chip implant" and "non invasive electro-magnetic waves" in the field of medicine and the adverse effects on the person’s general behaviour”, which could be violation of Articles 20 and 21 As per Section 4(1) (c) and (d) of RTI Act, which say:
S 4 (1) Every public authority shall— (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
The public authority has to voluntarily disclose its policy on these highly significant constitutional rights to all the people as that affect would affect entire public along with the reasons for the same. The Commission directed the public authority:
a) to inform whether there is any increasing use of "invasive mind control chip implant" and "non invasive electro-magnetic waves" in the field of medicine and the adverse effects on the person’s general behaviour”;
b) to provide a comprehensive and revised response to appellants RTI request as explained in second appeal,
c) to give details of the experts in the form of certified copies and also
d) to explain the policy on this matter to the public at large, filing a copy along with compliance report with this Commission and the PMO, before June 15, 2017.
The Commission also directed the CPIO of M/o. Science and Technology to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not providing information and why the Ministry should not be ordered to pay compensation. (Based on the decision CIC/MSTCH/A/2017/100675 in Dhananjay Kumar Jha v. PIO, M/o Science & Technology, on 18.5.2017)