Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/651983
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Technology
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025
Date of Decision : 11.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2022
PIO replied on : 27.07.2022
First Appeal filed on : 27.07.2022
First Appellate Order on : 25.08.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2022 before the Cabinet Secretariat seeking information on the following points:-
1. "The record keeping and retention policies for the Notes for and other records related to Cabinet Committees.
2. The particulars (date and file 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, 27/01/12, 09/05/13 dated 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 releases.
3. For all Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI-meaningful description (e.g., by way of statement u/s 4(D)(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)."
Since the RTI application got filed in duplicate, it gave rise to two separate cases, though the Appellant brought it to the notice of the Cabinet Secretariat and MeitY. On 01.07.2022, Cabinet Secretariat. transferred the points no. 2 & 3 of the RTI application dated 11.06.2022 to CPIO, MeitY and CPIO, NITI Aayog for response.
Page 1 of 4The CPIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information Technology vide letter dated 27.07.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1 to 3:- The information sought does not pertain to MeitY."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2022. The FAA, MeitY disposed off the First Appeal on 25.08.2022 with the following observation:-
2. The matter has been looked into again and informed that:
No records related to erstwhile Cabinet Committee on UIDAI are available with MeitY. UIDAI was attached with Meity w.e.f 12th September, 2015. This was also replied by Meity in her earlier RTI request vide Regn. No. DITEC/R/E/22/00447 (copy enclosed).
Cabinet Secretariat and NITI Aayog are best placed to decide any request for information on Cabinet matter related to CC-UIDAI The current RTI was received by Meity from Cabinet Secretariat and NITI Aayog. NITI Aagoy has already provided the information on CC-UIDAI in the matter (copy enclosed).
Meity has no information on CC-UIDAI related matters.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off."
The annexure mentioned at bullet point number 1 of the FAA's order i.e. a copy of email dated 27.05.2022 with respect to RTI request Regn. No. DITEC/R/E/22/00447 sent to the Appellant by an official from Meity is attached with the FAA's order dated 25.08.2022, whereby the CPIO/DD(eGov), Meity had informed the Appellant that: "No records related to erstwhile Cabinet Committee on UIDAI are available with MeitY. UIDAI was attached MeitY w.e.f 12 September 2015"
Likewise, response dated 15.07.2022 sent by the NITI AAYOG, whereby information record keeping and retention policy related records related to the Cabinet Committee has also been attached with the FAA's order, as mentioned in the bullet point 3 of the FAA's order.
Not satisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal challenging the very fact that the transfer of the case should have been rejected by MeitY. She further contended inter alia that: Request u/s 6 has to be disposed of by decision u/s 7(1) that must provide either the information or a reason from u/s 8 or 9 to reject the request. She further contended that: By permitting transfers impermissible u/s 6(3) to be registered, RTI Online provides for the making of illegal and statistically false NIL 'disposals' (to clear matters on the portal). This makes the RTI Online MIS statistically invalid and unreliable.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A combined written submission dated 21.02.2025 with respect to three Second Appeals listed today for hearing has been received from CPIO, MeitY with a copy marked to the Appellant, reiterating the aforementioned facts as under:
"2. In respect to the applicant, Ms. Gita Dewan Verma's RTI application vide Regn. No. DITEC/R/X/22/00032 dated 01.07.2022, DITEC/R/X/22/00033 dated 05.07.2022 were received from Cabinet Secretariat and DITEC/R/X/22/00035 dated 18.07.2022 received from NITI Aayog under Page 2 of 4 section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat stating that "For information relating to Point no. 2 and Point no. 3 part of the application are transferred to CPIO, MeitY and CPIO, NITI Aayog for response as they are best placed to consider the request for information on Cabinet matters based on the position if the matter is complete or over under first proviso to Section 8(1)(i) or any other provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. It is evident that the RTI Applications dated 01.07.2022, 05.07.2022, 18.07.2022 and First Appeal dated 18.07.2022 have been conjointly replied vide replies dated 27.07.2022 and 25.08.2022 respectively within the time period stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, similar issues regarding RTI request Regn. No. DITEC/R/X/22/00032 have been adjudicated on 19.07.2023, before the CIC in case no. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648143 dated 30.06.2023. The decision regarding the same is enclosed"
The Appellant has also filed written submission dated 22.02.2025 reiterating her prayer as under:
"I request the Commission to set aside the disposal of RTI Online Registration No. DITEC/R/X/22/00035 and direct MEITY and / or DOPT that owns RTI Online to expunge it from the RTI Online MIS."
While admitting that she has received the written submission dated 21.02.2025 filed by the Respondent, she has further averred as under:
" 3. I submit that the provision u/s 6(3) is for transfer within 5 days of an application made, i.e., u/s 6(1). A 'receipt' like no. DITEC/R/X/22/00035 - by re- transfer 37 days after online request - is contrary to the RTI Act and results because RTI Online:
i. allows any-time transfer/re-transfer, without justification u/s 6(3), and ii. assigns new number to every 'transfer' receipt - disconnecting it from the request made u/s (1) - which is problematic because:
CIC's online filing system requires a separate case against each RTI Online receipt, exacerbating problems related to pendency, and RTI MIS count (and, hence, the statistic reported u/s 25(3)(a)) is of requests received, which is in excess of the number of requests made. I request recommendation/direction to MEITY, as NIC's parent Ministry, to have NIC examine:
(a) if justification u/s 6(3)(i) & (ii) for transfer can be a mandatory data-field, and
(b) if RTI Online requests u/s 6(1) can be assigned a unique registration number (as is the case for grievances registered on CPGRAMS).
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Shri Sarbajit Roy Respondent: Shri Biswajeet Mandhata Patnaik - US/CPIO, NITI Ayog; Shri satya Prakash Chaudhary - US-Cabinet Secretariat and Smt. Srabana Ghoshal - CPIO- MeitY were present during hearing.
Parties are present for the hearing and reiterated their respective contentions as borne out of the aforementioned records.
Decision:
After examining the submissions filed by the parties and hearing the contentions at length, it is noted that appropriate response on the basis of information available on Page 3 of 4 record has been duly furnished by the Respondent to the Appellant, which is self explanatory in nature. In view of the Appellant's submission, it is recommended that Respondent-MeitY may examine and devise mechanism such that RTI Online requests u/s 6(1) can be assigned a unique registration number and avoid duplication of cases, in line with the grievances registered on CPGRAMS.
Considering the fact that response sent by the Respondent public authority to the Appellant is appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)