Central Information Commission
Mrvijyant Singh Chauhan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066 Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Information Commissioner CIC/DS/A/2013/002353SA CIC/DS/A/2013/002354SA Vijyant Singh Chauhan v. PIO, National Law University, Delhi Important Dates:
RTI: 20.05.2013 Reply: 20.06.2013 FAA: 25.07.2013
SA: 08.10.2013 Hearing: 15.02.2016 Decision: 23.2.2016
Result: Direction to give information in interest of institution.
Attendance:
1. Appellant, Mr. Vijyant Singh Chauhan is present. Mr. S. C. Lather, PIO, and Mr. S. K. Sharma, Consultant (Legal), are present from Public authority, National Law University, Delhi.
Contentions:
2. The appellant filed complaint dated 10.1.2013 to VC, alleging that Prof. Amar Singh and Ms. Sheshan Radha, faculty members, were in 'living in' relation in residential quarters amounting to bigamy or adultery and filed RTI request, dated 20.5.2013 seeking action taken.
He claimed that he was step brother of Ms. Archana Singh, wife of Prof. Amar Singh. The CPIO provided within a month, pointwise information besides stating that a ThreeMemberEnquiry Committee was constituted to examine the matter. He promised to provide copy of inquiry report whenever it was submitted and copy was given on 17.12.2013. . Still appellant, approached first appellate authority (FAA) seeking some more information and then filed this second appeal.
3. Appellant is step brother of Mrs. Archana Singh. On his elaborate 21 points RTI application, PIO provided pointwise information in a tabular form on 13.3.2013 as follows.
Point Query/Information requested Reply No. 2 Kindly provide the following information alongwith duly authenticated documents in support of each and every reply for which the information is requested to be provided to the undersigned under Right to Information Act, 2005. (i) A Committee has been constituted with the All the material created in any form, including following to look into the complaint: records, documents, correspondences, memos e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, 1. Prof. S. Sachidhanandam, Visiting circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, Professor
papers, samples, models, data material held in 2. Prof. Babu Mathew, Visiting Professor any electronic form, office notings and 3. Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar comments of the officers etc, which show that the matter is being examined by the University, as replied to by the Learned PIO, NLU, Delhi Copy of the notification No. NLUD/13/5962-64 vide his reply vide No. NLUD/RTI-30/5460 dated 10.04.2013 is attached at Annexure-I. dated 13.03.2013 to the Applicant. Copies of comments submitted by Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh and Ms. Archana Singh can't be disclosed being third party information.
(ii) All the steps taken on the above said complaint of the applicant (including daily progress on the A Committee has been constituted as mentioned in complaint from on and after 13.03.2013 till 2(i) above. The meeting of the Committee is yet to date) and all the material created in any form, be held.
including records, documents, correspondences, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models' data material held in any electronic form, office notings and comments of the officers etc on and after the 13.03.2013.
(iii) The complaint remained with the office of the Vice-
Names and designations of the officials with Chancellor, office of the Registrar, Deputy whom the above said complaint was lying Registrar and the office staff. The names of the during the period on and after 13.03.2013. officers/officials are as under:
Please intimate the periods when it was lying with which officer and what action was taken by that officer on what date on and after 13.03.2013. (i) Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice-Chancellor
(ii) Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar
(iii) Mr. S.C. Lather, Deputy Registrar
(iv) Mr. Ravi Kanojia, SCO No separate receipt and dispatch record is maintained by the University. Details of action taken have been provided in Annexure-I
(iv) No separate receipt and dispatch record is Please give the Applicant proof of receipt and maintained by the University dispatch of Applicant's abovesaid complaint in the offices of each of these official if any, on and after the 13.03.2013..
(v) If no steps taken on the abovesaid complaint A Committee has been constituted as per and/or no material created as a consequence of notification attached at Annexure-I the complaint on and after 13.03.2013, reasons for the same
(vi) As per various laws, guidelines, rules The University is in the process of finalising the procedures, manual etc., applicable to NLU, rules and regulations. Presently, the Delhi, if any as have come into existence on and guidelines/procedures specifying the timeline for after 13.03.2013, in how many days the dealing with the papers are yet to be finalised.
abovesaid complaint should be
resolved/handled//looked into and whether there
is delay.
(vii) Please provide copies of such laws, guidelines, The University is in the process of finalising the
rules procedures manuals etc applicable to rules and regulations. Presently, the
NLU, Delhi if any as have come into existence guidelines/procedures specifying the timeline for
on and after 13.03.2013, which prescribe time dealing with the papers are yet to be finalised.
limits for various stages starting from receipt of
complaint to its resolution/handling/looked into
including filing of prosecution and imposition
of penalties.
(viii)
If there is delay, the name of officials
responsible for the delay. The matter is to be looked into by the Committee
constituted as at Annexure-I
(ix) The University is in the process of finalising the
What penalty is prescribed against the officials rules and regulations. Presently, the
if they do not adhere to time limits. Please guidelines/procedures specifying the timeline for
provide copies of relevant laws, guidelines, dealing with the papers are yet to be finalised.
rules procedures, manuals etc., applicable to
NLU, Delhi, regarding it.
(x) The complaint has been referred to the Committee.
Action proposed to be taken against the officials Hence there is no delay in the matter.
for delay.
(xi) It is not related to providing available
It may be noted that the officials concerned information/record. PIO is not competent to answer
who have failed to take action are guilty of
the query.
conniving with offenders of law and procuring
benefit to them in contravention of law. They
are guilty of abetting the offences through
dereliction of duty. By when will such cases be
referred to vigilance.
(xii) The matter is being examined by the University. A
Whether any action has been taken against Committee has been constituted as per notification
Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh on and after 13.03.2013 at Annexure-I
or whether the abovesaid complaint was closed
without any investigation. And if closed
without investigation provide reasons thereof.
(xiii) The matter is being examined by the University. A
Whether the above said complaint was closed Committee has been constituted as per notification
after investigation (Preliminary enquiry) on at Annexure-I
and after 13.03.2013, then provide the
investigation report.
(xiv) The matter is being examined by the University. A
If any enquiry for taking Disciplinary action, Committee has been constituted as per notification
has been carried out or instituted against Prof. at Annexure-I
(Dr.) Amar Singh on and after 13.03.2013,
results of the same. The copy of enquiry report
be provided.
(xv) The matter is being examined by the University. A
If no enquiry carried out, reasons for the same. Committee has been constituted as per notification
at Annexure-I
The matter is being examined by the University. A
If disciplinary action has been taken against Committee has been constituted as per notification
(xvi) Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh on and after 13.03.2013,
at Annexure-I
results of the same. Copy of the same may be
provided.
(xvii) The matter is being examined by the University. A
Whether any penal action is initiated against Committee has been constituted as per notification
Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh on and after 13.03.2013 at Annexure-I
and what are the details and status of the said
penal actions. Please provide copy of penal
action.
(xviii) The matter is being examined by the University. A
Whether any recovery of expenses incurred by Committee has been constituted as per notification
NLU, Delhi on Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh's entire at Annexure-I
tenure in NLU, Delhi has been initiated on and
after 13.03.2013, details of the same alongwith
a copy of the same. If no action to this effect has
been taken, reasons for the same.
(xix) The matter is being examined by the University. A
If action on the complaint is still pending Committee has been constituted as per notification
against Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh on and after 13 at Annexure-I. PIO is not competent to given
03 2013 in how much time and what action will timeline.
be taken against Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh. Please
keep me updated until the action has been taken
and the matter has been finally concluded.
(xx) The University is in the process of finalising the
Please give me copies of conduct rules conduct rules.
applicable to the employees of NLU, Delhi, if
any as have come into existence on and after
13.03.2013.
(xxi)
The above information 2[(i) to (xix)]may be
provided alongwith the duly authenticated
certified Xerox copies of:-
A Committee consisting of following has been
a) All the material created in any form, including constituted to look into the complaint:
records, documents, correspondences, memos e-
mails, opinions, advices, press releases, 4. Prof. S. Sachidhanandam, Visiting
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts reports, Professor
papers, samples, models, data material held in 5. Prof. Babu Mathew, Visiting Professor any electronic form, office notings and 6. Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar comments of the officers etc, which show that the matter is being examined by the University, as replied to by the Learned PIO, NLU, Delhi Copy of the notification No. NLUD/13/5962-64 vide his reply vide No.NLUD/RTI-30/5460 dated 10.04.2013 is attached at Annexure-I. dated 13.03.2013 to the Applicant. Copies of comments submitted by Prof.(Dr.) Amar Singh and Ms. Archana Singh can't be disclosed being third party information.
A Committee has been constituted as per
b) Entire record of all the steps taken on the notification attached at Anneuxre-I. The meeting abovesaid complaint of the applicant (including of the Committee is yet to be held. daily progress on the complaint from on and after 13.03.2013 till date) and all the material created as consequence of the said complaint including any any material in any form, including records, documents, correspondences, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, Models, data material held in any electronic form, office notings and comments of the officers etc. on and after 13.03.2013 The complaint remained with the office of the Vice-
c) Entire record of Names and designations of the Chancellor, office of the Registrar, Deputy officials with whom the abovesaid complaint Registrar and the office staff. The names of the was lying during the period including records of officers/officials are as under:
the periods when it was lying with which officer and what action was taken by that officer on a) Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, what date on and after 13.03.2013. Also record Vice-Chancellor of proof of receipt and dispatch of my abovesaid b) Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar complaint in the offices of each of these officials c) Mr. S.C. Lather, Deputy Registrar on and after 13.03.2013. d) Mr. Ravi Kanojia, SCO No separate receipt and dispatch record is maintained by the University. Details of action taken has been provided in Annexure-I The University is in the process of finalising the
d) Entire record of various laws, guidelines, rules rules and regulations. Presently, the procedures, manuals etc., applicable to NLU, guidelines/procedures specifying the timeline for Delhi, if any as have come into existence on and dealing with the papers are yet to be finalised.
after 13.03.2013, which discloses in how many days the abovesaid complaint should be resolved/handled/looked into including filing of prosecution and imposition of penalties The University is in the process of finalising the
e) Entire record of various laws, guidelines, rules rules and regulations. Presently, the procedures, manuals etc., applicable to NLU, guidelines/procedures specifying the timeline for Delhi, if any as have come into existence on and dealing with the papers are yet to be finalised. after 13.03.2013, which disclose the penalty prescribed against the officials if they do not adhere to time limits.
The matter is being examined by the University. A
f) Entire record of Investigation Report Committee has been constituted as per notification (Preliminary enquiry) against Prof. (Dr.) Amar at Annexure-I. Meeting of the Committee is yet to Singh if any as have come into existence on and be held.
after 13.03.2013.
The matter is being examined by the University. A
g) Entire record of Disciplinary action inclusive of Committee has been constituted as per notification
its result and the copy of the Enquiry report at Annexure-I. Meeting of the Committee is yet to
against Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh if any as have be held.
come into existence on and after 13.03.2013.
The matter is being examined by the University. A
h) Entire record of penal action against Prof. (Dr.) Committee has been constituted as per notification
Amar Singh if any as have come into existence at Annexure-I. Meeting of the Committee is yet to
on and after 13.03.2013. be held.
The matter is being examined by the University. A
i) Entire record of any recovery proceedings for Committee has been constituted as per notification
recovery of expenses incurred by NLU, at Annexure-I. Meeting of the Committee is yet to
Delhi on Prof. (Dr.) Amar Singh if any as have be held.
come into existence on and after13.03.2013.
The University is in the process of finalising the
j) Copies of conduct rules applicable to the rules and regulations. The conduct rules are yet to
employees of NLU, Delhi if any as have come be finalised.
into existence on and after 13.03.2013.
4. In addition, letter and reminders from Registrar to faculty members, seeking their comments on the complaint were also provided to the appellant.
5. The CPIO submitted to the Commission all those papers including a representation from Ms. Archana Singh dated 19.02.2013 to the Vice Chancellor, saying:
With respect to the above mentioned complaints it is respectfully submitted that no marital relation subsists between me, Archana Singh and Professor Dr. Amar Singh Sankhyan, for many years.
My brother, the aforementioned Mr. Viljayant Singh Chauhan, is requesting certain personal information and has made a complaint against my former spouse Dr. Amar Singh Sankhyan, which in my humble opinion should not be entertained by the University. Mr. Chauhan is also raising certain questions and issues, which concern my personal information about my private life and fall within the scope of my right of privacy. ) This is to further bring to your kind attention that the information being sought by Mr. Chauhan, concerning my divorce and separation from Dr. Amar Singh Sankhyan, has been conveyed to Mr. Chauhan when we last spoke sometime in June 201 1. Since then, owing to reasons better known to Mr. Chauhan, he has ceased all communication with me. I find it surprising that he is requesting your University to provide information related to issues, which I would be glad to discuss with Mr. Chauhan, if directly contacted. Just to reiterate that the University should not entertain any complaint from Mr. Chauhan with reference to my marital relationship with my former spouse Dr. Amar Singh Sankhyan. Notwithstanding my statements in the aforementioned paragraph, I would like to state for clarity that the information being requested by Mr. Chauhan is of a private nature and thus it is solely at my discretion to disclose. Thus, I humbly request that the University refrain from providing any type of information or entertain any complaint from Mr. Chauhan with reference to my marital relation with my former spouse that may implicate me or my relationship with my former spouse Dr. Amar Singh Sankhyan, without my written consent. I would also humbly request that Mr. Chauhan be asked to contact me directly for any clarifications that he needs regarding the various information that he is seeking."
6. After examining the records and statements, the threemembercommittee concluded that no action was required at the level of the University.
7. The appellant at the end of his detailed submissions and arguments prayed the Commission for direction for copies of the letters containing comments that the two faculty members submitted to the ThreeMemberCommittee. The CPIO stated that those comments were their personal information of two faculty members who objected to disclosure. He felt that those letters could not be given as per section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Response to this alone is left out, since all other information was furnished to appellant.
The Question:
8. The question for consideration before this Commission is whether the 'comments' in response to complaint would be "personal" information of third parties or not, if so, whether its disclosure serves any public interest?
Inferences:
9. Generally the public authority will deny such information to the persons like appellant because what all appellant wanted was apparently about personal life of others, which has nothing to do with their public activity. Though it appears like a complaint against two faculty members, the appellant is, in fact, seeking personal information about his step sister, which ultimately might expose her personal life. His status as step brother of wife of a professor in NLUD will not entitle him any right or locus to seek his sister's personal information under RTI Act. It is not the case that he is either her representative or guardian. He pleaded larger public interest behind his RTI request, but did not specify what it was. Nor he could prove any fair motive or need for the same. The PIO was generous in giving almost all information, except letters from two faculty members, claiming as third party information. It is important to note that all the three 'third parties' objected to the disclosure request.
10. The letter of Ms. Archana Singh, quoted in Para 5 above is crucial in this context as she categorically stated that no marital relation subsisted between her and Mr. Amar Singh. She unequivocally declared that Appellant was totally unjustified in raising questions about her private life. She claimed privacy and requested the University not to entertain any query by her stepbrotherappellant. Thus it's obvious that appellant has no authority to complain or to level grave charges, as if he was representing welfare of his sister. The Commission found that he was not championing his sister's cause as revealed by her letter.
11. The Commission has no reason to disbelieve cessation of marriage between Ms. Archana and Mr. Amar Singh, in the absence of such contention from any side. When there is no subsisting marriage, allegations of bigamy, adultery etc cannot stand at prima facie level also. Thus, Ms. Archana Singh's request deserves positive consideration. It is not proper on the part of the appellant to seek private information of three persons, without any proper reason. To understand strength/weakness of allegations it is necessary to refer to section 494 of IPC:
Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.--Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Exception) --This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.
12. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharasthtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564 it was held that to constitute the offence of bigamy under section 494 of IPC, second marriage has to be strictly proved in order to obtain a conviction. Mere proof of cohabitation is not sufficient. It was also observed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padullaparthi Mutyala Paradeshi vs Padullaparthi Subbalakshmi, on 3 August, 1961; 1962 CriLJ 308: "that the prosecution, when it charges a person with the offence of bigamy punishable Under Section 494 IPC should prove positively, apart from the marriage which is subsisting, that the accused contracted another valid marriage." (Emphasis supplied.) It is also relevant to refer to Section 497 which defines adultery:
Section497 Adultery "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."
13. Inference from above two provisions can be that in case of bigamy, either of wives should have complained, not their brothers, much less step brothers; and in case of adultery, the husband of a woman should have complained against male accused. Thus it is concluded that the appellant has no legal capacity to complain at all.
14. Coming to complaint against faculty members for being in a 'livein' relationship to be inquired as breach of conduct also fails because none could show any illegality in such 'livein' relation, if true, in this case when no party had earlier subsisting marriage. As no norm or conduct rule for faculty was found to be violated, it warrants no action from University. By filing a complaint without having any authority, appellant chose RTI route to seek from University 'action taken' information on such complaint, which is yet another ground to suspect his motive. Lack of capacity in appellant to complain and the fact of cessation of marriage between Prof Amar Singh and Ms. Archana would end this case completely.
15. The appellant has no locus or any other capacity to complain or to seek personal information.
16. In any case, the appellant got all the information except the 'comments' of Mr. Amar Singh and Ms. Shesha Radha, who wrote two separate letters couched in same language, appear similar in all respects saying they 'have no comments to make on the complaint". They requested not to supply their personal and family information to the complainant. The PIO has submitted that he had no other letters except these.
17. Examining the question whether appellant could get the copies of these letters, the Commission observes that no public interest is proved by the appellant to override exception of nondisclosure of personal information under section 8(1)(j). More so, he has neither authorisation nor grounds to seek information about past marital life of Mr Amar Singh, which might invade privacy of his sister also. It is necessary to examine whether public interest lies in either disclosure or in nondisclosure as required under Section 8(2). Appellant could not establish any.
18. The Commission has to examine under given facts and circumstances of the case, where a step brother is trying to use RTI seeking private information of his sister and two professors in the form of complaining to University whether any larger public interest, if not appellant's interest, will be served by disclosure of 'comments' of two professors and copy of request letter from Ms. Archana Singh dated 19.2.2013.
19. Regarding request for 'comments' of two professors, it is clear that they made no comments at all as they claimed to have no comments to make. The Commission feels that if public authority hides this information it might convey wrongful impression that some unwanted personal affairs are being covered up. Disclosure of this 'no comment' of the two faculty members cannot result in any invasion of their privacy. In fact, disclosing these 'comments' will fulfil demand of appellant in one way and protect the dignity of three persons appellant's sister and two professors. Hence as per section 8(2) Commission finds that this information has to be given in larger public interest to secure the reputation of an institute of justice education like National Law University, Delhi besides in the best interest of two professors and sister of appellant. As a pioneer in this field, the NLUD is expected to take sufficient steps to secure the right to privacy and to dignity as components of right to life recognized under Article 21, of any faculty member, from any attack in the form of RTI request.
20. Whether from employees or outsiders, the institute should not be harassed with multiple RTI questions on frivolous grounds as they too have a duty to contribute towards the University to stand in its esteem as an example for the future generations of lawyers and judges.
21. The issue before Commission is not the 'interest' claimed by appellant but the dignity and reputation of National Law University Delhi and its faculty as a whole. No person should be encouraged to use RTI to throw reckless allegations mentioning abhorrent offences against faculty members of such a National Law School, which is serving needs of quality legal education. The best interest of a prestigious law university, in so far as its law faculty is concerned, lies in the fact that people should not discuss teachers for wrong reasons. Such unfounded and unjustified allegations provoke rumour mongers to work overtime, who need to be silenced by disclosure. Best way of countering rumours is publicising truthful information. It is also in best interest of the two faculty members. Thus, Commission concludes that larger public interest will be served by disclosure, and interest in disclosure will outweigh the interest in nondisclosure, as per the test prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 8.
Direction
22. In view of the above discussion, the Commission directs the CPIO of NLUD to provide to the appellant certified copies of all three letters viz. representation by Ms. Archana Singh dated 19.02.2013 and comments submitted by Dr. Amar Singh and Dr. Seshan Radha in separate letters dated 9.3.2013 (retain a copy with proof of dispatch or acknowledgement), within 20 days from the receipt of this order.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, National Law University, Sec14, Dwarka, New Delhi110078.
2. Shri Vijyant Singh Chauhan, M203, Aruna Apartments, 33Indra Prastha Extension, Delhi110092.