Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Govind Singh vs Defence Research And Development ... on 7 March, 2023

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                           क   ीय सुचना आयोग
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                       मुिनरका,
                          नरका नई द ली - 110067
                       Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                        File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2022/122736

In the matter of
Govind Singh
                                                               ... Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO,
Instruments Research & Development Establishment (IRDE),
DRDO,
Raipur Road, Vigyan Vihar Colony, Dehradun,
Uttarakhand - 248008
                                                               ... Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   23/11/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   13/12/2021, 16/01/2022
First appeal filed on             :   01/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order   :   21/02/2022
Second Appeal filed on            :   06/05/2022
Date of Hearing                   :   07/03/2023
Date of Decision                  :   07/03/2023

The following were present:

Appellant: Present over phone (Due to State holiday) Respondent: Dr. Sanjay, CPIO, present over phone (Due to State holiday) Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information:
- Whether Mr. Ranpal Singh was present on duty on 09/10/2019, 19/10/2017, 17/11/2019 and 23/12/2019? Also provide a copy of the relevant pages of the Attendance Register in regard to the same. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he asked for general information and the same would not be prejudicial to the organisation's interest. However, he failed to establish any allegation of corruption or human rights violation. The CPIO submitted that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 24(1) except information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 13.12.2021 replied to the appellant and stated that proper fees under the RTI Act was not provided. Therefore, the application was invalid. However, he also mentioned that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 24(1) except information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Further, on 16.01.2021 again it was reiterated that DRDO is exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The FAA also vide order dated 21.02.2021 reiterated the CPIO's reply.

The CPIO maintained his stand that the DRDO is an exempted organisation. It is pertinent to quote an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"

Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately 2 supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".

In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. The appellant's allegations in the second appeal of human rights violation are unfounded.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, no further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3