Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Venkatesh Nayak vs Electronics Corporation Of India Ltd. on 6 August, 2021

                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECOIL/A/2019/145542

Shri Venkatesh Nayak                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.

Date of Hearing                         :   05.08.2021
Date of Decision                        :   06.08.2021
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   28.03.2019
PIO replied on                          :   08.05.2019
First Appeal filed on                   :   08.05.2019
First Appellate Order on                :   01.08.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   18.09.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2019 which was responded to by the CPIO and DGM (CS and Law) Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL) vide letter dated 08.05.2019 as under:

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2019. The FAA vide order dated 01.08.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 was incorrectly invoked for points 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the RTI application without proper justification/ reasons. He referred to point no 1 of the RTI application and stated that if the information sought was voluminous, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) Report can be disclosed from the year 2013 onwards. He also referred to point no 3 of the RTI application and stated that he had already obtained similar information regarding Page 2 of 3 the name of the manufacturing company and the model number of the micro controllers used in M3 EVMs from Bharat Electronics Ltd which also manufactures EVMs and VVPATs and supplies them to the Election Commission of India. The Appellant also submitted that the information sought was in the larger public interest since due to non-disclosure of information in the public domain there were rumours, allegations and differing views about the fidelity and reliability of EVMs and VVPATs questioning the credibility of the manufacturers.

The Respondent represented by Shri M S R S Prasad , DGM (CS and Law) and Shri Amresh Maurya, Sr Technical Officer participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Maurya reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that certain confidential technical information relating to products manufactured by them was sought by the Appellant disclosure of which was not deemed feasible as per Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, during the hearing, it was stated that information on points 11 to 13 can be provided at this stage.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) has been claimed by the CPIO for points 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 12 and 13 of the RTI application by merely stating that the information is classified without any further justification/ explanation. The Appellant has also argued that information sought in points 6 and 9 is not voluminous and even if it is so, the CPIO can provide a sample report to him. Thus, in the light of the above observations, the Commission remands the instant matter back to the FAA, ECIL to re-examine the matter and pass a reasoned/ speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The above-mentioned direction should be complied with by 30.09.2021 under intimation to the Commission.

With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3