Central Information Commission
Kiran Babanrao Deshmukh vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 10 April, 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 : CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/120191
Kiran Babanrao Deshmukh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers' Welfare, D/o Agriculture
and Farmers' Welfare, INM Division,
RTI Cell, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/04/2023
Date of Decision : 05/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 09/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 16/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. Please state why the word "Importer" is omitted in clause 3(4) & 3(5). If this is inadvertent it may please be corrected immediately.
2. Clause 3(7) says that "No person shall manufacture or import any Biostimulant unless such Biostimulant is included in schedule VI". Schedule VI along with specifications, test methods for inclusion are not published in gazette. This effectively, means that all those existing businesses of Biostimulant which involve import and manufacture are made illegal. Please state if this is intended? Also that, time limit for framing schedule VI is not given in gazette?
3. If schedule VI is not ready, what is the haste of creating law? Please state why putting the law in abeyance till formation of schedule VI cannot be considered?
4. Further, clause 3(10), states that "No Biostimulant shall contain any pesticide beyond the permissible limit of 0.01 pm". Pesticide is a class of chemicals. Please clarify, how FCO will verify 0.01 pm 'Pesticide' content in any product. As of Feb 2020, 292 Pesticides are registered and present in the market. Does FCO realize that testing method for Each Pesticides molecule is different, and no analysis can be carried out without knowing the identity of the suspected products?
5. Do existing products in the 8 categories such as Humic / Fulvic , Seaweed, Amino acid / Protein hydrolysate automatically become biostimulant ?
6. Please state how Biostimulant action (mode / mechanism) i.e., stimulation of physiological processes in plants can be ascertained and by what test? If this cannot be ascertained, how the law can be implemented for the purpose of registration of products?
7. Since Biostimulant is not a well identified molecule, is it true that FCO registration authority has no mechanism to verify any Biostimulant action / function / claims regarding performance of Biostimulants? Is it true that, method prescribed for data submission of registration also demands no proof of Biostimulant activity? If this is not true, please state the mechanism.
8. Please state if Existing importers / manufacturers of Humic / Fulvic , Hydrolysed protein and Seaweed who do not claim Biostimulant action and do not wish to register their products as Biostimulant can continue to market seaweed , amino acid / protein hydrolysate & Humic / Fulvic product as vegetable manure or fertilizer or soil amendment or anti stress product ?2
9. Please state whether Biostimulant Label must provide chemical identity of the preservative used and its percentage by volume? is this already stated in notification ?
10. Please state whether shelf life study required is for registration of Biostimulant is accelerated or normal period study? Please state if any Guidelines have been prescribed in notification?
11. Many products coming under the 8 Biostimulant categories are being purchased and used by farmers for more than two decades, which is sufficient proof that they are benefited by its use. (Even without any recommendation from agricultural university or government). Please state why bioefficacy trials have to be conducted to prove something already known to science?
12. Please state, how agronomic bio-efficacy trials can be conducted, till FCO approved testing methods for biostimulant under various categories is published in Schedule VI.?
13. Since FCO approved test methods are not available in Schedule VI, Please state, how Biostimulant content in sample to be submitted by manufacturer desiring registration can be ascertained, and how appropriate control can be selected for trial?
14. Please state if FCO has prescribed protocol for agronomic bio.efficacy trials to be conducted for registration of Biostimulant (in 1 season on 3 agro climatic zones) for each Biostimulant product.
15. Please state if any qualitative parameters have to be studied during agronomic bio-efficacy trials? What should be design of experiment and how many replications are required?
16. Fertilizers and manures under FCO do not require crop wise label claim. Please state if Biostimulants need crop wise label claim?
17. Please state details of any evidence available with Ministry of Agriculture to show that Biostimulant products which come under the 8 categories are toxic chemicals like pesticides and therefore pose environmental hazard?3
18. Please state why it is necessary to study acute and eco toxicology of Biostimulants, whereas bio-pesticides and bio-fertilizers are exempted from eco toxicology data?
19. Please state why acute and eco toxicological test are not mandatory for fertilizers which are generally used in huge quantity per acre but have been prescribed for Biostimulant which are generally natural / organic and are used at very low doses per acre?
20. Please state if maximum permissible limit of 10 milligram / kg of arsenic (as A5203) is specifically excluding the organic form of arsenic in seaweed. Please state method to be used for analysis of As203
21. Please state the basis on which Anti-transpirants, Vitamins and Biochemicals have been included as categories of Biostimulant.
22. Please state if it is true that the word 'Bio-chemicals' can encompass thousands of plant derived and synthetic chemicals, which may or may not have bio-stimulant action.
23. Please state if as on date, FCO Approved method of analysis is available for:
a. Humic acid / potassium humate?
b. Fulvic acid / potassium fulvate?
c. Leonardite / lignite/ peat / vermiwash?
d. Various species of Seaweed extract?
e. Hydrolyzed protein / Amino acid / peptide / Poly Peptide. f. Individual amino acids (Amino Gram)?
g. If yes? Please share the method of analysis of each.
24. If not Please state why the act should not be kept in abeyance till such methods are included in schedule VI.
25. Original registrant has to spend a lot of money to obtain Biostimulant registration, but there is no protection/ exclusivity for any period, whereas it will be free for the Me - Too followers. Please state why there is no provision for data sharing for me-too Biostimulant products as in the case of pesticides?
26. As amino acid + micronutrient is a micronutrient as per FCO, please state, why amino acid alone is a Biostimulant?4
27. Please state, under what circumstances combination product of micronutrients and Amino Acid is called as a Biostimulant? What should be their proportion?
Does Amino acid have to perform chelation of micronutrient? And how It can be ascertained?
28. Please state, if a Biostimulant product has some traces of known PGR's, would the product be a Biostimulant or PGR?
29. Please clarify why seaweed and hydrolyzed protein (which are now classified as Biostimulant), micronutrients which are part of FCC and Gibberellic acid which is a known PGR are together classified as PGR under CIB? In this product, the major constituent is micronutrient, and second highest content is Biostimulant, but product with just 0.001 % a.i comes under CIB as PGR
30. Please state, if plant nutrient, PGR and biostimulant together in a product are permissible?
31. Please state, if a number of biostimulant can be combined for more efficiency?
32. Since three pesticides are now permitted in a product, will 3 (three) Biostimulant be permitted in a single product under FCO?
33. As per definition- Biostimulant can have nutrient content (clause 2(1) (ab)) "...... regardless of its nutrient content.......". Please state if Biostimulant can be a combination of biostimulant and macro/ micro nutrient product? if yes a. Which nutrients are allowed?
b. In what proportion?
c. Whether organic or inorganic forms of nutrients are allowed?
34. Please state whether the nutrients allowed in Biostimulant are to be naturally present, part of manufacturing / extraction process or added later to the Biostimulant product.
35. Please state, what is the maximum percentage of micro or macro nutrients permitted in Biostimulant product to still call it as a Biostimulant and not as a micro or macro nutrient product?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 09.02.2022 and stated as under:5
"Kind reference is invited to your application Registration Number DOA&C/R/P/22/00048 dated 11/01/2022 and to inform you that this Ministry vide Notification S.O. 882 (13) dated 23.02.2021 incorporated the provision for regulating the biostimulants under Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The provisional registration is granted only to the manufacturers for the period of two years from the date of issue of notification. For permanent registration, the companies/ importers are required to apply in form G alongwith the agronomic efficacy trials data and toxicology data. Alter the permanent registration, the product is entered in Schedule VI. Further, this Ministry has constituted a sub Committee to examine the technical aspects relating to Biostimulants. Some of issue raised arc the interpretation of Provisions of FCO and under RTI, only the available information is provided to the applicant, CPIO is not supposed to make interpretation under RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2022. FAA's order dated 16.03.2022,upheld the reply of CPIO with the following observations -
"After perusal of the records, it was found that reply furnished by the CPIO is within time limit and in accordance with the extant provisions of FCO, 1985. Further, it is also observed that the information sought by the appellant is not covered under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. CPIO is, however, being advised to place the issues before the competent authority for its consideration."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Ravindra Bhaskar present through video/audio- conference.
Respondent: H. P. Singh, Law Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that unsatisfactory response has been provided by the CPIO.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the CPIO did not appear before the CIC during hearing, despite receipt of hearing notice on 22.03.2023 as per postal tracking report. Therefore, due efforts were made by the registry of this bench to contact the CPIO telephonically. Upon contacted through phone and to a query 6 from the Commission regarding his absence, the CPIO tendered his apology by making excuses that hearing notice was perhaps missed out by his admin department due to an oversight; however, his absence was unintentional. Further, as regards the Appellant's contentions, he submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 or to the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has largely expressed conjectures and sought for information based on speculative queries which cannot be appreciated or comprehended.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no infirmity in the initial reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application and the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the relief or the action that is being desired by the Appellant through the said appeal.
Even if, the Commission was to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr.v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary 7 relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Nonetheless, upon insistence of the Appellant and in the spirit of RTI Act,the CPIO is directed to provide a point wise revised reply intimating the Appellant categorically that where ever the information sought does not fall under the ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also where information could be provided , if any , copies of relevant available guidelines/information which may suffices the information sought against respective points may be provided. The said reply should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission adversely viewed the absence of the CPIO during hearing and without intimating any substantial reason thereof during hearing, which only shows his disregard to the proceedings of the Commission which is in violation of the provisions of RTI Act. In view of the above, the present CPIO is hereby directed to send his written submission explaining the reasons for his absence before the Commission during hearing in black and white. The said written explanation of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
ADVISORY Lastly, it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of introducing/updating a FAQs Section on their website wherein a brief 8 outline pertaining to Biostimulants and issues/clarifications/respective orders/circulars pertaining to the said subject matter can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9