Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Niti Aayog on 11 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No. (As per Annexure)
Gita Dewan Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NITI Aayog,
RTI Cell, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi-110001.
CPIO,
UIDAI, RTI Cell, Kali Mandir,
Aadhaar Building, Bangla Sahib
Lane, Gole Market, New
Delhi-110001.
CPIO,
MEITY, RTI Cell, Electronics
Niketan, 6. CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 19/07/2023
Date of Decision : 11/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The instant set of Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application and overlapping grounds of Second Appeal.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 22/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05/09/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed 8 similar RTI application(s) dated 11.06.2022 seeking following information:
"In No. CABST/R/E/22/00025 dated 17/01/22 I had requested information of the manner in which information related to Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues (CC-UIDAI) has been made public by mandate u/s 8(1)(i) since its discontinuation in 2014. Cabinet Secretariat had made transfer on 27/01/22, about which I had sent email dated 28/01/22 on subject Appeal u/s 19(1) / request in terms of s.4(1)(d) that Joint Secretary & FAA had decided by order dated 22/02/22. The order had said in para-3.2.3 (iv) about CC-UIDAI that some documents may be available in Cabinet Secretariat records but it is for the sponsoring Ministries / Departments to decide timing and manner of their disclosure and in para-3.3 (ii) that Notes for the 5 CC- UIDAI meetings held during 2010-2014 were forwarded by erstwhile Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog) and hence my request was transferred to NITI Aayog.
Decision dated 17/03/22 of NITI Aayog Sr Advisor (G&H) & FAA said UIDAI is no longer an attached office of the NITI Aayog, NITI Aayog Is not custodian of records of the CC-UIDAI and information relating to it is not available in NITI Aayog. I ascertained that UIDAI is now attached to MEITY and made requested to it. MEITY transfer to UIDAI. Decision dated 11/05/22 of UIDAI DDG (Finance, Accounts and Legal) & FAA said that UIDAI is not the custodian of any Cabinet Committee documents. I applied again to MEITY Decision dated 27/05/22 of CPIO DD (Egov) said that no records related to CC-UIDAI are available with MeitY.
Now, please provide the following information:
1. The record keeping and retention policies for the Notes for and other records related to Cabinet Committees.
2. The particulars (date and his number) of the communications by which the Planning Commission forwarded the Notes for (a) the 5 meetings of CC- UIDAI for which press releases dated 18/05/10, 22/07/10, 27/01/17. 09/05/13 and 04/02/14 are found on PIB website (under Other Cabinet Committees), and
(b) the Approval of Phase V for which press release dated 10/09/14 is accessible through Cabinet Secretariat website link for CCEA press release.
3. For all Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI-meaningful description (e.g., by way of statement u/s 4(1)(b)(Vi), detailed with the information of the cataloguing and indexing u/s 4(1)(a) and identifying for each item precisely who is to decide when to make it public."2
The CPIO, US (Admn.II), NITI Aayog furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.07.2022 & 01.07.2022 stating as under:
1. "The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section-II.
2. The press release available on the PIB website for the said dates are related to:
- Funding of phase II of the UIDAI scheme
- Approval of funding of phase-III of the UIDAI
- Aadhar enrolment beyond 20 crores
- Setting up of the National Skill Development Agency(NSDA)
- Approval to proposal for reallocation of states for Aadhar enrolment The above mentioned information sought by the applicant is not available with Administration Section, NITI Aayog. However, if applicant wishes to see any specific information/documents personally, she is requested to indicate her convenience to visit during office hours and if required, take copies of such specific information/document
3. The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section II.
Accordingly, the RTI application is transferred to the concerned section of NITI Aayog/UIDAI and MeITY under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this connection NIL, information have been received by the CPIO(s) concerned."
On 22.07.2022, an online reply was provided by Nodal Officer, RTI stating as under:
"Due to technical error CPIO (S&T) and CPIO (SF&C) have been forwarded one RTI application many times one may be dealt with. However, NIL information have been received by the CPIO(s) concerned."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2022 stating as under:
"My request No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 was received in NITI Aayog by partial transfer u/s 6(3) from Cabinet Secretariat. I am making this appeal to request reference back to Cabinet Secretariat conveying whether or not NITI Aayog has any objection to Cabinet Secretariat providing me the requested information. I will be filing it separately for the various additional registration numbers generated by NITI Aayog, as is required by RTI Online User Manual. For statistical integrity of RTI Online MIS, none of those appeals is returnable.
FACTS of my request to Cabinet Secretariat and its transfer:
1. Decisions in prior RTI matters had informed me that NITI Aayog, MEITY and UIDAI hold no records related to the discontinued Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues (CC-UIDAI).
Enclosing those decisions in Supporting Document, on 11/06/22 I made online request to Cabinet Secretariat for 3 points of information including, at point-2, dates and file numbers of Notes forwarded by Planning Commission to Cabinet Secretariat for CC-UIDAI and, at point-3, 3 description of Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI. That is the information in issue herein.
2. On 01/07/22 Cabinet Secretariat made late transfer of points 2 & 3 to MEITY and NITI Aayog, saying that "they are best placed to consider the request for information on Cabinet matters based on the position if the matter is complete or over". I received no email intimation of the transfers or of the subsequent disposal on 04/07/22 that I noticed only on 10/07/22.
3. On 10/07/22 I filed appeal objecting to transfers to public authorities holding neither the Planning Commission's files / Notes nor the Cabinet Secretariat's records and also having no cause to decide if any matter is complete or over because I have not sought any material about any matter. I requested that Cabinet Secretariat provide me the information, if needed after issuing third party notices u/s 11 of the RTI Act to MEITY and NITI Aayog. The request herein corresponds to that request.
4. By my email dated 11/07/22, forwarded herein, I apprised NITI Aayog (through the email IDs provided on RTI Online) of my appeal in Cabinet Secretariat. (Cabinet Secretariat FAA has rejected my appeal without addressing its grounds and request and I will be filing Second Appeal before the CIC).
FACTS of the processing of the transfer in NITI Aayogi
5. My request, received in NITI Aayog on 01/07/22, was forwarded to CPIO (G&R) on 04/07/22 (and the CPIO email ID to which my email dated 11/07/22 was addressed was his).
6. On 11/07/22 my request was transferred to CPIO (Admin.11).
7. On 15/07/22 CPIO (Admin.lI) issued a letter saying that the information does not pertain to / is not available in Admin Section and made transfers u/s 6(3) to "concerned sections of NITI Aayog/ UIDAI and MEITY". Within NITI Aayog, the so-called transfers u/s 6(3) were made to CPIO (State Finance & Coordination) and CPIO (Science & Technology).
8. On 18/07/22 nine additional registration numbers were generated on RTI Online as the request got forwarded in triplicate to CPIO (SF & C) (Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /1, /4 & /7) and CPIO (S&T) (Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /3, /6 & /9) as well as to transferring CPIO (Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /2, /5 & /8).
9. On 18/07/22 CPIO (Admin.11) disposed of No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 as well as the additional Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /2, /5 and /8 by uploading his letter dated 15/07/22.
10. On 19/07/22 I filed 4 identical appeals Nos. PLCOM/A/E/22/00037, 38, 39 & 40 against the 4 identical disposals Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023, /2, /5 & /8.
10. On 22/07/22 my appeals Nos. PLCOM/A/E/22/00038, 39 & 40 were returned with online Remarks, "You have filed 4 (four) Appeals against RTI No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 dated 01.07.2022. One is retained for taking appropriate action and remaining three appeals are returned back being duplicate."
11. The 'disposed of status of Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /2, /5 & /8 remained unchanged, although my appeals were on the grounds, firstly, that the status was false and the corresponding appeal request was for the status to be rectified.
12. On 22/07/22 five more additional registration Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /10, /11, /12, /13 & /14 were generated with Nodal Officer named CPIO.
13. On 22/07/22 eleven Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /1, /3, /4, /6, /7, /9, /10, /11, /12, /13 and /14 were 'disposed of with identical online Reply saying, "Due to technical error CPIO (S&T) and CPIO (SF&C) have been forwarded one RTI application many times one may be dealt with. However, NIL information have been received by the CPIO (s) concerned."
GROUNDS for the request for reference back to Cabinet Secretariat:
A) A request u/s 6 cannot be lawfully disposed of with NIL information because it has to be disposed of by CPIO u/s 7 by either providing the requested information or refusing it for a 4 reason u/s 8 or 9. If the information is not held by / does not pertain to the public authority then the public authority has to dispose of the request u/s 6 by returning / refusing the request or transferring it. NIL responses purporting to be decisions u/s 7 are in fact refusals without reason, falsely counted as disposals in RTI Online MIS.
B) The NIL information supplied 15 times by 4 CPIOs in July was already systematically supplied to me on behalf of all Verticals of NITI Aayog in para-3.1(iv) of the order dated 17 March 2022 reproduced at start of the Supporting Document in my request. The matter ought not to have been processed again u/s 7.
C) NITI Aayog cannot provide me the information (dates and file numbers of Notes forwarded by Planning Commission and description of Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC- UIDAI) that Cabinet Secretariat holds. The transfer u/s 6(3) from Cabinet Secretariat ought to have been refused.
D) The reason for Cabinet Secretariat's transfer, viz., that NITI Aayog is to decide if the information (held by Cabinet Secretariat) can be provided to me, is amenable not to section 6(3) but to section 11 of the RTI Act. NITI Aayog should have, in terms of Cabinet Secretariat's reason for transfer, conveyed its objection / no-objection to Cabinet Secretariat.
E) By neither returning the Cabinet Secretariat's transfer nor conveying to Cabinet Secretariat its objection / no-objection -- and by, instead, 'disposing of the matter 15 times with NIL information -- NITI Aayog has obstructed the information by aiding Cabinet Secretariat's misuse of section 6(3) to evade my request.
GROUNDS regarding online appeals and RTI Online / MIS:
F) The return on 22/07/22 of my 3 appeals was wrong. The remark that I filed 4 appeals against No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 was false. RTI Online does not even permit more than one appeal per registration number and I had filed 4 appeals against 4 registration numbers because RTI Online User Manual clearly says (on page 25) that separate appeal is to be filed for each additional registration number generated by the public authority. This is obviously required for statistical integrity: if I get n unsatisfactory responses, I must file n appeals because if I file only one, n-1 cases will be counted in the RTI Online MIS as un-appealed.
G) The return of my 3 appeals for "being duplicate" was wrong. If I get n identical unsatisfactory responses, I will file n identical appeals. On 18/07/22 I had got 4 identical responses against which I filed 4 identical appeals. On 22/07/22 I have got 11 identical responses, against which I will file this same appeal 11 times through RTI Online.
H) The return of my appeals for "being duplicate" is exceptionable also because NITI Aayog did not return the Cabinet Secretariat's duplicate transfer and processed it also as No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024.
I) The return of my 3 appeals against Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 /2, /5 & /8 without the requested rectification of their 'disposed of status amounts to rejection, not return, of the appeals and the returned status of Nos. PLCOM/A/E/22/00038, 39 & 40 is false.
J) Reply with which the matter was 'disposed of 11 times on 22/07/22 coneys that extra registration numbers were generated due to technical error. This Reply should have been used to RETURN, and not DISPOSE OF, the erroneously generated request registration numbers that were not maintainable. Appeals against the Reply that wrongly 'disposed of instead of returning are not only maintainable but necessary for statistical integrity of RTI Online MIS.
K) My surviving prior appeal No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00037 (and also No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00036, arising from Cabinet Secretariat's duplicate transfer), in which I requested withdrawal of the transfers resulting from the letter dated 15/07/22, have been rendered infructuous by the disposals on 22/07/22.
In view of foregoing, I request that my simple request for reference back to Cabinet Secretariat conveying whether or not NITI Aayog has objection to the supply of the requested 5 information to me be allowed and that none of the appeal registrations of this appeal that I will be making through RTI Online be returned."
FAA's order dated 18.08.2022 stated as under:-
"Your Appeal No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00037 dated 19.07.2022 against RTI application No PLCOMRX2200023 dated 05.07.2022 has been disposed of vide order No. A-51011/16/2020-Admin II dated 18.08.2022 (copy attached) due to technical error multiple RTI generated & Appeal filed may be treated as disposed of."
The FAA's above stated letter of 18.08.2022 contained the following order:
"Not being satisfied with the RTI replies dated 15.07.2022 and 18.07.2022, in response to the respective RTI Applications No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 dated 05/07/2022 & No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 dated 01/07/2022, the respective present appeals No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00037 dated 19.07,2022 and No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00036 dated 19.07.2022 have been preferred by Ms. Geeta Dewan Verma....under the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. I have seen the records of the RTI Application made available by CPIO & have also seen the contention of the applicant in the appeals. On perusal it was found that Admin II, NITI Aayog received RTI Application dated 05.07.2022, subsequently transferred by Cabinet Secretariat, and further transferred by CPIO (G&R) with reference to the Point 2 of the RTI that pertained to the Planning Commission's Notes (now NITI Aayog) regarding press releases dated 18/05/10, 22/07/10, 27/01/12, 09/05/13, 04/02/14 and 10/09/14. Accordingly the suitable reply was furnished by Admin II to the RTI applicant -vide reply dated 15.07.2022 wherein it was mentioned that No such information is available with the records of Administration --II Section". As regards, the transfers of the RTI to other Public Authorities/other divisions of NITI Aayog are concerned; it is to inform that various Verticals/Divisions in NITI Aayog handle different subject matters. CPIO (Admin) transferred the RTI to other verticals/Departments/Ministries with a view that these Public Authorities were more closely connected with the subject matter of RTI and would perhaps be in a position to furnish suitable reply to RTI dated 15.07.2022, particularly the UIDAI. Further, multiple appeals were generated against the same RTI appeal due to technical error, hence the duplicate RTI Appeals were returned to the RTI cell, and accordingly disposed of, informing that the original RTI appeals (mentioned in para I above) will be dealt in due course of time. It has been mentioned by the applicant herself that RTI request was filed by her in duplicate by error.6
As regards returning the RTI to CPIO (G&R) Vertical is concerned, if the RTI applicant is riot satisfied with the reply of CPIO (G&R), she may file next appeal in accordance with RTI Act. Hence, there are no further comments to offer by CPIO (Admin II) and as per the text of the appeal, grounds of appeal against Admin II are found to be untenable."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s) reiterating the RTI Application preface and grounds of First Appeal while stating the following additional points reproduced hereunder in a cumulative form with a substantively common background note:
Background note:
"My request dated 17/01/22 to Cabinet Secretariat to know how information related to 2 Cabinet Committees discontinued in 2014 was made public u/s 8(1)(i) proviso was transferred to NITI Aayog for Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues [CC-UIDAI]. Cabinet Secretariat FAA's order said this was because CC-UIDAI Notes were forwarded by Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog). NITI Aayog CPIO provided NIL response for G&R Vertical. FAA allowed my appeal request for process u/s 5(4) and order dated 17/03/22 said, after assistance from other Verticals, that NITI Aayog is not the custodian of CC-UIDAI records and also that UIDAI is no longer under it. I then applied to MEITY (now parent Ministry of UIDAI). MEITY transferred to UIDAI. UIDAI FAA's order dated 11/05/22 said UIDAI has no CC-UIDAI documents. I applied again to MEITY. MEITY CPIO's response dated 27/05/22 said no records related to CC-UIDAI are available in MEITY.
Enclosing all said orders, on 11/06/22 I applied to Cabinet Secretariat for dates and file numbers of communications by which Planning Commission forwarded CC-UIDAI Notes to Cabinet Secretariat and description of Cabinet Secretariat's CC-UIDAI records. On 01/07/22 Cabinet Secretariat transferred to NITI Aayog and MEITY for "response" as they are best placed "to consider the request" u/s 8(1)(i) proviso. In appeal I said that neither my request nor the reason for transfer was amenable to section 6(3) and to ask to be given the information held by Cabinet Secretariat, if needed after notices u/s 11. My summarily rejected appeal u/s 19(1) is pending u/s 19(3) in F. No. CIC/CABST/A/2022/643870. The present Appeal is one of the matters arising from the transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog that NITI Aayog disposed of 15 times with NIL responses."
Prayer in the instant appeal(s) reproduced as under:
• I request the Commission to direct the Nodal Officer (CPIO herein) to: (a) Have provided to me the "response" for which Cabinet Secretariat made transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog; (b) Obtain and provide to me decisions on my request u/s 19(1) (which I am entitled to be provided without having to apply for u/s 6) and / or provide to me the reasons, in terms of section 4(1)(d), for RTI Cell decision to not process Cabinet Secretariat's transfer dated 01/07/22 in terms of the reason for which it was made to NITI Aayog.
• I request the Commission to direct Nodal Officer (CPIO herein) to: (a) Have provided to me the "response" for which Cabinet Secretariat made transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog;
(b) Disclose to me how and why the matter was 'transferred' to CPIO (Admin.II) to dispose of u/s 7(1) by making transfers u/s 6(3); (c) Disclose the CPIO for response to Cabinet 7 Secretariat's transfers to NITI Aayog to "consider the request" in terms of first proviso to section 8(1)(i) - apropos which I also request direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) to NITI Aayog to publish information in this regard.
• I request the Commission to direct the Nodal Officer (CPIO herein): (a) Have provided to me the "response" for which Cabinet Secretariat made transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog; (b) Have provided to me, in terms of section 4(1)(d), the reasons for RTI Cell decisions to:
i. To make further-transfer dated 18/07/22 No. UIDAI/R/X/22/00010 to UIDAI of Cabinet's Secretariat transfer for only MEITY and NITI Aayog to "consider the request";
ii. To make further-transfer dated 18/07/22 No. DITEC/R/X/22/00035 to MEITY of Cabinet's Secretariat joint transfer to MEITY and NITI Aayog; iii. To, out of the 4 transfers u/s 6(3) made in same letter, find only no.1 & 2 made by 'Technical error' and no.3 & 4 not erroneous / requiring withdrawal. II) I also request the Commission to, u/s 19(8)(b), require NITI Aayog to compensate me for the loss of Rs. 20/- (Rupees twenty only) that I had to pay toward RTI fee for making the 2 applications to access the information from MEITY and UIDAI that was enclosed with my present request - because its RTI Cell had failed to make in January the necessary further-transfers that it needlessly made in July.
• I request the Commission to direct the Nodal Officer (CPIO herein) to: (a) Have provided to me the "response" for which Cabinet Secretariat made transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog; (b) Disclose to me why I was not provided response on behalf of NITI Aayog despite the order dated 17/03/22 of FAA (G&R) being part of Cabinet Secretariat's present transfer. II) I request the Commission to give recommendation u/s 25(5) to NITI Aayog to instruct its CPIOs to, in cases of transfers u/s 6(3), take assistance u/s 5(4) to provide response on behalf of NITI Aayog.
• I request the Commission to direct the Nodal Officer (CPIO herein) to: (a) Have provided to me the "response" for which Cabinet Secretariat made transfer dated 01/07/22 to NITI Aayog; (b) Disclose to me - for each of the Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/1 to 14 marked 'Technical error' (with no detail) in list appended to order attached to FAA's online Reply:
i. details of the 'technical error' by which it got registered on RTI Online, ii. details of the 'technical error' by which it got disposed of on RTI Online, iii. reason for not expunging it from RTI Online MIS (on which it stands 'disposed of') iv. details of the 'technical error' by which appeal against it got registered on RTI Online, v. details of the 'technical error' by which appeal against it got disposed of on RTI Online, vi. reason for not expunging the appeal against it from RTI Online MIS (on which it stands 'disposed of').
• I request directions for having No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2 & 5 & 8 EXPUNGED from the RTI Online MIS.
Written submission of the Appellant received prior to the hearing dated 16.07.2023 stated as under:8
"2. I sent joint letter dated 10/07/23 to the other parties. I have got no comment. Copies of my letter and proof of dispatch / delivery are enclosed.
3. I have received by emails dated 14/07/23 copies of NITI Aayog's written submissions (with no mention of my letter dated 10/07/23). They are all unrelated to the cases in hand and appear to seek to obfuscate them as well as subvert others that are pending and were listed in my letter dated 10/07/23. I will be filing Rejoinders.
4. I received (by reply-email dated 12/07/23 to mine dated 10/07/23) copy of UIDAI letter requesting removal from list of Respondents for the reason that I have no prayer for action by UIDAI. The same applies also to MEITY and seems reasonable. I am not inclined to comment on the request for removal because I am not aware why they were added. Instead, I request that UIDAI and MEITY be arrayed on my side (not opposite me) for whatever assistance is needed from them for deciding my Appeals."
The contents of the aforementioned letter dated 10.07.2023 of the Appellant addressed to the three Respondents reads as under:
"The 8 cases are among 21 arising from Cabinet Secretariat's transfers to NITI Aayog & MEITY and NITI Aayog's to MEITY & UIDAI and multiple disposals. (List is at the end.) My request dated 11.06.2022 to Cabinet Secretariat was follow-up to my IF-ELSE request dated 17.01.2022 to it about information made public u/s 8(1)(i) of RTI Act in case of discontinued Cabinet Committee on UIDAI: URL if made public via internet, else description u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) of records. The initial transfer was only to NITI Aayog. NITI Aayog pointed to MEITY. I made to MEITY the request not transferred to it. MEITY transferred to UIDAI. I applied to MEITY for information of reasons. Enclosing the prior (nil) decisions, I applied to Cabinet Secretariat w.r.t to its press releases about 6 meetings for dates and file numbers of Planning Commission's communications for those and, again, description of records. This is firstly to bring to your attention that CIC has already rejected in your favour my following cases concerning your prior decisions that were part of my request dated 11.06.2022:
• No. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/616979: Decision dated 16.12.2022 • No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131: Decision dated 01.05.2023 • No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 & • No. CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610: Decision dated 01.05.2023 (combined) The rejections are relevant to cases arising from my request dated 11.06.2023 because:
(a) My cases question the transfers, further-transfers and additional receipt registrations and the combined CIC Decision dated 01.05.2022 is that information of justifications is not covered u/s 2(f).
(b) Description of records, one of the two points transferred, was also sought in my prior requests and the Decisions dated 16.12.2022 and 01.05.2023 (UIDAI) are that the information sought in my prior requests is not covered u/s 2(f).
3. I had sought description of records again because the requested URL was not provided. (UIDAI FAA had volunteered instead a search facility URL for finding the Aadhar Bill.) Decision dated 01.05.2023 (UIDAI), however, notes (on page-3) that "FAA of MeitY vide his order dated 11.05.2022 had provided the requested URL". MEITY FAA's letter dated 25.08.2022 No. 11(4)/2022-EG-I had said, "NITI Aayog has already provided the information". NITI Aayog FAA's decision as reproduced in CIC Decision dated 16.12.2022 conveys that he observed the manner in which information "has been made public by the Cabinet Secretariat". As description of records was initially sought in absence of URL, I seek to know the URL -- if there is one -- at which information has been made public u/s 8(1)(i) of RTI Act.
94. The other transferred point of my request dated 11.06.2022 -- particulars (date and file number) of the communications by which Planning Commission forwarded Cabinet Notes for the 6 meetings between 18.05.2010 and 10.09.2014 -- was not part of my prior requests that have been quashed. I believe this information is covered u/s 2(f) and is not exempt. I do not know who holds the Planning Commission files containing it:
• At hearing on 13.09.2022 for my Appeal concerning NITI Aayog I had pressed for direction to its Records Officer to locate the files. It nominated Records Officer only on 14.09.2022. CIC Decision dated 16.12.2022 advised me to pursue the issue before the appropriate forum. I pursued by writing letter dated 14.02.2023 to NITI Aayog CEO. Copy is enclosed. I have got no response.
• My Appeal concerning UIDAI was for description of letters (likely issued in Planning Commission files) by which Cabinet decisions were conveyed to it. CIC Decision dated 01.05.2023 said nothing of that and I applied to UIDAI for the letters and information of its Public Records Act officers. Copy is enclosed. The matter is pending u/s 19(1).
• My Complaint concerning MEITY arose from FAA refusing me advice for locating the files. Because MEITY is parent ministry of UIDAI and has Public Records Act officers (Chief Records Officer and review officer for downgrading classified records), and because my prayer for NITI Aayog to locate the files had fallen, in written submissions for hearing on 01.05.2023 I requested that MEITY may be asked to locate the files.
For the dates and file numbers of Planning Commission's communications, I seek to know:
(a) if you consider the information covered u/s 2(f) of RTI Act,
(b) if you consider the information exempt from disclosure u/s 8 or 9 of RTI Act, and
(c) if NITI Aayog has traced or can trace the Planning Commission files, if UIDAI has traced or can trace the letters by which Cabinet decisions were conveyed to it, and if MEITY has any role in terms of the Public Records Act in the matter.
5. Grounds and prayers u/s 19(3) are set out in my 8 cases. It seems they are not material if the request u/s 6 fails the test u/s 2(f). I am not yet able to make out, from citations included in CIC Decisions, the test u/s 2(f). This letter is in pursuit of that understanding.
Subsequent submissions of Varina Nathani, DS (RTI) & CPIO, NITI AYOG dated 14.07.2023 are also taken on record wherein she has merely reiterated all of the facts that are already on record.
To this submission, the Appellant filed a rejoinder on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
"In F. Nos. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648143, /648144, /648146, /648149 and /648150, I have received copies of 5 letters dated 14/07/23, issued 'with the approval of the Competent Authority, NITI Aayog'. The substantively identical 5 letters have no reply to the distinct grounds in the 5 Appeals or even to common Ground A. Letter para-2, purporting to contain 'written submission', has text running all the way to prayer para-3, all under heading 'Brief facts of the case' with no sub-para numbers.
'Brief facts of the case' selected / not selected make the 'written submissions' irrelevant to the 5 Appeals in hand. Because prayer-para-3 falsely claims information has been provided, it is pertinent that:10
(i) The information requested from Cabinet Secretariat is dates and file numbers of Planning Commission's communications for meetings of a discontinued Cabinet Committee and NITI Aayog FAA's order dated 17/03/22 saying NITI Aayog holds no records related to that Committee is part of the request.
(ii) The 5 Appeals in hand are not for the information held by and sought from Cabinet Secretariat. They are for clearing the obstruction of it. Ground A and prayer-(a) is the same in all and same as request in 1st appeals that were not decided: i.e., for the 'response' sought in Cabinet Secretariat's transfer-note.
In the case of which order dated 17/03/22 was part (F. No. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/616979) I sought direction to NITI Aayog Records Officer to locate Planning Commission files. Records Officer was appointed only later. I wrote to CEO w.r.t CIC Decision. On 10/07/23 I wrote to CPIO w.r.t present Notices to know if NITI Aayog has traced the files. Planning Commission files are not mentioned in 'written submission'. The situation is this: Cabinet Secretariat will not give me file numbers without the say-so of NITI Aayog and NITI Aayog is neither giving nor letting Cabinet Secretariat give me the file numbers.
Rejoinder to the 'written submission' in para-2 of the 5 letters dated 14/07/23 (using the dates therein in lieu of para numbers) is, in the foregoing context, as follows:
1. Written submissions are rendered irrelevant by suppression of key relevant facts:
a) In Para-2[01-07-2022]: Suppression of fact that NITI Aayog FAA's order dated 17/03/22 is part of my request dated 11/06/22 transferred to NITI Aayog. The order is subject of Ground A in all 5 Appeals.
b) Between Para-2[01-07-20227 and Para-2[18.07.20227: Suppression of fact of my email dated 11/07/22, from which my 1st appeals and 2nd Appeal prayer-a continue and which is Supplementary Document in all 5 Appeals.
I press prayer-(a) in all 5 Appeals, i.e., for FAA decision not given.
2. Written submissions restate the unclear stand on section 6(3):
a) In Para-2 118.07.20221: The say in the letter dated 15/07/22 that the transfers to MEITY, UIDAI and 2 NITI Aayog CPIOs were all u/s 6(3) is restated. There is no further mention of the transfers to UIDAI & MEITY although I have raised specific grounds against those in my Appeal No. /648146 and although UIDAI & MEITY have been impleaded through Notice of Hearing.
b) About the 'transfers' within NITI Aayog: Para-2118.07.20227 mentions the 2 CPIOs' submissions' dated 20 & 21/07/22 to undisclosed authorities; Para-2122.07.221 encloses Nodal Officer's disposals dated 22/07/22 saying applications were "forwarded" etc.; Para-
2123-08-20221 conveys all were by 'technical error'; and Para-2[18-08-2022] • encloses the order by which FAA (Admin.II) rejected appeals to withdraw all transfers dated 15/07/22 (saying, for the internal ones, that "verticals/ Ministries/Departments"
are PAs), and • cites the order by which FAA (RTI Cell) rejected appeals for response of 'transferee' verticals (saying 'technical error'). If NITI Aayog cannot clarify its stand on section 6(3), I press prayer-II in Appeal No. /648146 for compensation of loss of Rs. 20/- due to its fluctuating stands.
3. False irrelevant assertions are made about letter dt. 15/07/22 of CPIO (Admin.II):
11c) In Para-2118.07.20227: That CPIO (Admin.II) provided information is false. Letter dated 15/07/22 said information sought does not pertain to / is not available in his section and 'transferred' to 2 other NITI Aayog CPIOs.
d) In prayer Para-3: That "all necessary information, that was in the domain of the CPIO, was provided" is, besides false, peculiar for the usage "domain of CPIO". RTI Act that defines information to mean material held by the public authority. Transfer u/s 6(3) was to "domain" of NITI Aayog, not of CPIO (Admn-II) -- a point already settled in my favour by FAA's order dated 17/03/22. Contrary to that order, CPIO (Admn-II) 'transferred' to other NITI Aayog CPIOs.
I contest prayer-para 3 for speaking of "domain" of CPIO (Admin-II) without replying to Grounds of Appeal No. /648144 questioning how he even had the receipt. I press my prayer-II in Appeal No. /648149 (recommendation for process u/s 5(4) for receipts u/s 6(3))
4. Written submission repeats vague claims of "technical error" without disclosing the error for PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/10 to 14 from which the 5 Appeals in hand arise:
a) In Para-2118.07.20227 and/or Para-21 22.07.227:
• It is stated that PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/10 to 14 were generated with others "while partially transferring". Copy enclosed with para-2[18.07.2022], however, is 'ACTION HISTORY OF RTI REQUEST No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 up to 18/07/23 and shows only the earlier PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/1 to 9. Copy enclosed thereafter with para-2[22.07.22] is of ACTION TAKEN on PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/10 to 14, after they were generated. ACTION TAKEN on the parent registrations on which they were birthed is not disclosed. • It is stated that PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/10 to 14 were generated among others generated "with the same text". All 5, however, were generated with same text not matching any other on request Forms, i.e., "Matter does not relate to State Finance & Coordination Vertical. Therefore RTI application is returned to Nodal Officer, RTI Cell". (Request forms with that text are part of document 'Copy of Application' in all 5 Appeals). • It is stated that CPIO "SF & Coord Vertical submitted on 20.07.2022" and "CPIO (S&T) provided 'NIL' information on 21.07.22". Nothing matches these statements in the enclosures that also do not show the date 20/07/22.
b) In Para-2 123-07-20221: It is alleged I filed appeals against applications born of "technical error". The allegation is absurd. Appeals u/s 19(1) do not lie against applications u/s 6.
They lie against disposals u/s 7(1). Clearing erroneous entries with erroneous disposal entries is wrong.
c) In Para-2 118-08-20221: Copy enclosed is of order dated 18/08/22 on appeals dated 19/07/22. That was one of two pages attached to the "technical error" remark with which my appeals dated 23/07/22 were disposed of. The other --subject of prayer-(b) in Appeal No. /648150 -- was list of all my 'Appeals received multiple times due to technical errors'.
Because no detail of the "technical errors" is disclosed in the written submissions filed a year later, I press prayer-b of Appeal No. /648150 for the same. I reiterate all my Appeal Grounds in this regard."
Similarly, another set of written submission dated 14.07.2023 filed by Biswajeet Mandhata Patnaik, CPIO (Admin-II), NITI AYOG stated inter alia as under:
12 13 14In response to the same, the Appellant filed another rejoinder on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
"In F. Nos. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/653646, /653650 & /653651, I have received copies of written submissions of NITI Aayog CPIO (Admin-II). My 3 Appeals, filed separately for online filing, are identical. CPIO's 3 Written Submissions are likewise, each containing letter dated 14/07/23 of 7 pages with 51 pages Annexure (44 pages in one on account of pages missing in 2nd Appeal copy). I am filing common Rejoinder.
CASE DESCRIPTION:
CPIO's expansive written submissions are unrelated to my 3 Appeals against the 3 registration Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8. For clarity, the case in brief is that:
• PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 are those 3 out of 14 receipts that NITI Aayog self registered in my name that were identically disposed in manner unique to them and impossible under RTI Act - with statuses showing receipt on 01/07/22 disposed of i.e. u/s 7(1) on 19/07/22 by having been transferred i.e. u/s 6(3) on 15/07/22, i.e. impermissibly late, besides to non- existent M/o UIDAI & MEITY.
• PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 became fully de hors the RTI Act when my 3 appeals against the 3 uniquely identical disposals were all returned as "being duplicate".
• 1st appeals were for status rectification of PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8. 2nd Appeals are for direction for having them expunged from RTI Online MIS. The offending statuses continue online [ANNEXURE-1].
PARA-WISE REJOINDER:15
1. Rejoinder to Para-2 (Background):
a) Narration does not pertain to PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8. It pertains to the parent transfer dated 01/07/22 and duplicate dated 05/07/22. Those are not cases of returned appeals or Statuses inconsistent with RTI Act [ANNEXURE-2].
b) PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 are mentioned only once, on page-2, when CPIO says -
after mentioning my say in my appeal about NITI Aayog's (till then) 9 additional registrations - that they are one such "duplicate application". There is no mention of their disposals. My 3 appeals are called "duplicate appeals" on page-2 & page-5 and later also in para-3. That is false, as it is not possible on RTI Online. RTI Online allows only one appeal against one request registration and none without disposal till 30 days. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 are registered on RTI Online with Received date 01/07/22. My 3 appeals dated 19/07/22 could not have been filed without 3 disposals.
2. Rejoinder to Para-3 (Reply to 2nd Appeal grounds):
(A) Reply to Ground A & D is same. Rejoinder is in para (D) (B) CPIO has misunderstood. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2,5&8 were not transferred.
Ground B is not against their transfer. It is against online Status saying request was disposed of by late transfer, etc. (CPIO's interpretations of section 6(3) to justify transfers within the PA and late transfers need to be otherwise quashed).
(C) CPIO has evaded Ground C(i) by saying it is not clear. RTI Act makes it perfectly clear disposal u/s 7(1) is open to appeal u/s 19(1). In reply to Ground C(ii) CPIO has cited ID Note dated 20/07/22 of then CPIO by which, with approval of FAA (Admin.II), my appeals were returned to RTI Cell. He has not answered how return of appeal is tenable under the RTI Act or even why my appeals before FAA (Pension) were before FAA (Admin.II) for his approval of their return.
(D) In Reply to Ground A (against receipt registrations in my name) and Ground D (against legally invalid and statistically false disposal entries in my name) CPIO has noted that I mentioned in my appeals that I had filed my request u/s 6(1) in duplicate by error. Earlier, in his para-2, CPIO noted that I also said I brought that to notice of Cabinet Secretariat but it transferred in duplicate. CPIO has nowhere noted that I also said I brought the duplicate transfer to notice of NITI Aayog by email dated 11/07/22 (which was attached to my appeals and is therefore part of CPIO's Annexures). The duplicate was nevertheless disposed of by letter dated 18/07/22, when NITI Aayog also self-registered 9 receipts in my name. It seems that my error had made me fair game for NITI Aayog to multiply the transfer receipt in my name 14 times.
3. Rejoinder to last para:
CPIO's concluding para, praying for disposal in view of "position mentioned" and "fact" of information having been provided, bears no relation to my Appeals. (The "fact" claimed also bears no relation to "position mentioned" that includes CPIO's letter saying no information is available). The written submissions do not disclose:
• How and why PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 were created.
• How and why PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 were disposed of.
EXPANSION OF APPEAL PRAYER IN VIEW OF CPIO'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: CPIO has, after calling them "duplicate applications" in para-2, made only one statement about PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8. In his reply to Ground A & D, CPIO has said, "It appears that the aforesaid multiple applications were generated due to technical error/system error". CPIO's statement supports my prayer for having PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8 expunged. That they have not already been expunged and CPIO has, in reply to Ground D, evaded the part about statistically integrity of RTI MIS and implications for the function u/s 25 is disturbing. If NITI 16 Aayog's RTI MIS account is compromised by "technical error/system error" then its quarterly returns are also compromised. I pray now, in view of CPIO's written submissions, for direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iv) r/w 25(3)(a)&(b) to NITI Aayog to make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance of its RTI MIS account so as to keep true record of RTI receipts and disposals, including by purging all erroneous entries including Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.1: Varina Nathani, DS (RTI) & CPIO along with Bhanusri, Sr. Specialist present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.2: T Satyanarayana, Director & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.3: S Ghoshal, Scientist-B (E-gov) along with Baby Rani, ASO present through intra-video conference.
In pursuance of all of the descriptive facts on record, the proceedings of the hearing were rather brief and informal. The proceedings comprised of the Appellant briefly referring to the RTI Application preface and to her written arguments on record and primarily harping on to the why and how of her RTI Application being registered as multiple requests by NITI AYOG.
After the exchange of few comments amongst the parties on the lines of all that was already brought the Commission's attention in the written record, while also highlighting the fact that the Appellant was provided an opportunity to visit their office by the CPIO, US (Admn.II), NITI AYOG to specify and inspect relevant records, Bhanusri, Sr. Specialist, NITI AYOG sought to explain that there is no provision in the RTI portal to withdraw the RTI registrations generated from the parent RTI Application as it will entail removing the record of the parent RTI Application itself.
As the Commission sought to comprehend the mammoth material on record, the Appellant stated few excerpts from her rejoinders submitted on 17.07.2023 and urged for relief as described.
Decision:
The Commission at the very outset dispenses with Respondent(s) 2 & 3 in the matter after taking into consideration their written submissions as also the Appellant's no objection to them being dispensed with as Respondent(s) but at the same time her request to allow these Respondent(s) to be arrayed on her side is a non-maintainable request. There is no provision in the RTI Act that allows or mandates a public authority to assist/plead or co-plead a case of a RTI Applicant before the Commission.17
Similarly, the Commission finds no merit in dragging the argument against multiple registration of her RTI request by NITI AYOG, as it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has got her point noted, the point is well taken and NITI AYOG is advised to look into the same to avoid recurrences of similar nature unless the same is unavoidable by virtue of the modalities of the RTI online portal. In this regard, FAA, RTI Nodal Cell, NITI AYOG is advised to take note of the Appellant's following submission for adopting corrective measures as applicable:
"If NITI Aayog's RTI MIS account is compromised by "technical error/system error" then its quarterly returns are also compromised. I pray now, in view of CPIO's written submissions, for direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iv) r/w 25(3)(a)&(b) to NITI Aayog to make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance of its RTI MIS account so as to keep true record of RTI receipts and disposals, including by purging all erroneous entries including Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8."
The above observations dispose of File Nos. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648146 + 653650 + 653651.
As for the relief part sought for in the remaining 5 Appeal(s), in the considered opinion of this bench based on the comprehension of the length and breadth of the Appellant's written statements, the sum and substance of her case lies in the allegation that NITI AYOG did not decide the disclosure of information sought for at points 2 & 3 of the RTI Application vis-à-vis Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act as was implied to be understood by the Appellant from the reply of the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat dated 01.07.2022. It is also her contention that CPIO, US (Admn-II) was perhaps not the authority to respond quoting unavailability of information or transfer the RTI Application further.
Since the entirety of the Appellant's contentions have been placed on record, the Commission finds no reason to paraphrase or quote her arguments any further in the matter for the sake of brevity and preserving valuable resources, therefore, to allay her apprehensions and to facilitate her long-standing cause for finding the concerned record holder and the records, the CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG is directed to revisit the matter in the backdrop of the grounds of the five appeals i.e File Nos. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648143 + 648144 + 648146 + 648149 and 648150 and provide a combined single reply after consulting the CPIOs of necessary/concerned verticals under due endorsement of this order regarding the availability and viability of disclosure of such available information, if any, and provide a final reply to the Appellant. In doing so, the CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG may invite the Appellant to visit their office for inspection of any material record that the CPIO may find cumbersome to identify or collect & collate etc. In other words, CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG is required to liaise 18 with the concerned CPIOs to the extent possible for providing a consolidated reply in the matter to the Appellant. The said direction to revisit the matter shall be complied with by the CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Appellant may appreciate the liberty accorded to the CPIO here owing to the sheer volume of her arguments and the magnitude of the relief she is desirous of under the mandate of the RTI Act. The Appellant is also reminded of the Commission's observations from her previously decided cases that under the RTI Act, the CPIOs cannot be compelled to assume a role that is beyond what is prescribed for them, and the RTI Act does not warrant the CPIOs to interpret records or provide answers, explanations and extrapolations.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:First Appellate Authority RTI Cell NITI Aayog, RTI Cell, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
--(For information and appropriate action as per para 2 of the Decision above) 19 Annexure
1. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648143
2. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648144
3. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648146
4. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648149
5. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648150
6. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/653646
7. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/653650
8. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/653651 20