Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Planning Commission on 22 May, 2020
के ीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मिु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/NITIA/A/2018/633093-BJ+
CIC/NITIA/A/2018/633094-BJ+
CIC/NITIA/A/2018/633096-BJ+
CIC/NITIA/A/2018/633097-BJ
Mr. Siddharth Joshi
(E mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO-Health Niti
Aayog Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.05.2020
Date of Decision : 22.05.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/ NITIA/A/2018/633093-BJ Date of RTI application 17.09.2017 CPIO's response 12.01.2018 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.09.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copies of all responses received from the State Government in response to the DO sent by Amitabh Kant regarding Model Concessionaire Agreements (MCA) for the provision of prevention and treatment services for non-communicable diseases (Cardiac Sciences, Oncology, and Pulmonary Sciences) at the district level in June 2017 to officials of various states governments.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the additional payment file was under submission hence the information had not been provided. Dissatisfied by the Page 1 of 7 response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/ NITIA/A/2018/633094-BJ Date of RTI application 17.09.2017 CPIO's response 12.01.2018 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.09.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Model Concessionaire Agreements (MCA) for the provision of prevention and treatment services for non-communicable diseases (Cardiac Sciences, Oncology, and Pulmonary Sciences) sent by Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog in June 2017 to officials of various states governments; Minutes of Meeting along with agenda, materials circulated and list of attendees of meeting held in February 2016 with officials of World Bank and International Finance Corporation regarding development of model concession agreement in PPP mode, etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the additional payment file was under submission hence the information had not been provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/ NITIA/A/2018/633096-BJ Date of RTI application 17.09.2017 CPIO's response 12.01.2018 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.09.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Model Concessionaire Agreements (MCA) for the provision of prevention and treatment services for non-communicable diseases (Cardiac Sciences, Oncology, and Pulmonary Sciences) sent by Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog in June 2017 to officials of various states governments; Concept Note prepared by World Bank for discussion on public-private partnerships for non- communicable diseases; All the correspondences along with attachments sent by the NITI Aayog seeking responses of healthcare industry representatives through a questionnaire regarding providing care for non-communicable diseases at district hospitals; etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the additional payment file was under submission hence the information had not been provided. Dissatisfied by the Page 2 of 7 response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/ NITIA/A/2018/633097-BJ Date of RTI application 17.09.2017 CPIO's response 12.01.2018 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.09.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Model Concessionaire Agreements (MCA) for the provision of prevention and treatment services for non-communicable diseases (Cardiac Sciences, Oncology, and Pulmonary Sciences) sent by Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog in June 2017 to officials of various states governments; Concept Note prepared by World Bank for discussion on public-private partnerships for non- communicable diseases; Reports of the Four Working Groups set-up during the meeting on 08.12.2016 at NITI Aayog on the subjects - 1) Defining specific levels of services, 2) Financing,
3) Project structuring and linkages and 4) Diagnostics, etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Appellant that the additional payment file was under submission hence the information had not been provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Joshi through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Khattar, SRO (H) through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no information was provided to him despite the payment of the requisite fees and that the First Appeal was also not decided, till date. Explaining that the issues raised by him pertained to the larger public interest, the Appellant stated that it related to policy level decisions of handing over hospitals to Private entities under the PPP Model. In its reply, the Respondent stated that subsequent to the payment of fees, they had provided the information in all the matters to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.10.2017 sent through speed post and a copy of the dispatch receipt of the same was also enclosed by them in their written submission. It was also submitted that they had made necessary correspondence regarding the dispatch of information to the Appellant by email. On being queried if the reports including the reports of the Sub-Committee on the issues raised in the RTI application was uploaded on the website of the Public Authority, the Respondent submitted that the Final Report on Developing Model Concession Agreement for Treatment of NCDs on PPP Mode was uploaded on the website and that the sub- Committee report shall also be uploaded in consultation with the CEO, NITI Aayog.Page 3 of 7
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 19.05.2020 wherein the copies of the response furnished to the Appellant were enclosed. It was also stated that the FAA had passed an order to appear before him. Thus, the Respondent stated that the necessary information was already provided to the Appellant in 2017. The Respondent assured to forward a copy of the aforementioned submission to the Appellant on his email id [email protected]) The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 4 of 77. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission also observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the Page 5 of 7 governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to provide a copy of their written submission to the Appellant on his email id with all relevant enclosures as also suo motu disclose the information relating to the sub- committee reports as discussed in the preceding paragraphs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, as agreed.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] िदनांक / Date: 22.05.2020 Page 6 of 7 Copy to:-
1. CEO, Niti Aayog, Niti Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 Page 7 of 7