Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Satyabrata Biswas vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 19 November, 2019

                                के 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/MHOME/A/2018/624507


 Satyabrata Biswas                                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम



 CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs                            ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
 North Block, New Delhi.



Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 12.01.2018             FA     : 28.02.2018               SA     : 28.06.2018

 CPIO : 02.02.2018            FAO : 02.03.2018                  Hearing : 14.11.2019


                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi seeking information on three points pertaining to the award of 'Bharat Ratna', including, inter-alia (i) whether 'Bharat Ratna can be awarded posthumously, and (ii) if a 'Bharat Ratna' awardee who is Page 1 of 4 alive at the time of the announcement of the name, dies before the 'medallion' and the 'citation' for that award is to be presented to him, what are the relevant rules regarding presentation of the 'medallion' and the 'citation'.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO informed him that the information sought by him does not fall under the category of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, but provided a copy of the Notification regarding statutes and rules regulating award of Bharat Ratna, which according to the appellant, does not contain the information sought by him. The appellant stated that on appeal, the FAA provided information only on point No.(i) and informed him that no information is available in respect of point nos (ii) & (iii). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought by him.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Satyabrata Biswas attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Ms. Padma Agnihotri, Section Offcier, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi was present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that it can so happen that a person who is awarded 'Bharat Ratna' is alive at the time of the announcement of the award but dies before the 'medallion' and the 'citation' for that award is presented to him. He, therefore, wants to know the relevant rules regarding the presentation of 'medallion' and the 'citation' in such cases. However, the information sought for has not been provided to him.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 02.02.2018 that the information sought is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to express an opinion or to provide reasons or answer queries or questions with prefixes such as how, why, what, when and whether as per CIC decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006. The respondent further stated that copies of the relevant notification(s) regarding statutes and rules regulating award of Bharat Ratna has been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; date of judgment 09.08.2011 had observed as under:

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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........"

7. In view of the above, the Commission notes that an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 18.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

3. Shri Satyabrata Biswas, Page 4 of 4