Central Information Commission
Dr. R. C. Tyagi vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 20 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01444 dated 20.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Dr. R. C. Tyagi
Respondent - Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Dep't of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
Facts:
By an application of 9.8.07 received in the DOPT on 14.8.07 Dr. R. C. Tyagi of Meerut U.P. applied to the CPIO DOPT seeking the following information:
1. "Reasons recorded for exempting DRDO from the operation of the RTI Act as claimed in the DRDO's letter dated 31.10.2006.
2. Functions of the Nodal Officer and the Regional PROs etc in DRDO as displayed on the RTI website, after the exemption given to DRDO.
3. Extent of the scope to which the exemption given to the DRDO would also cover the information sought in the following matters:
a. Unclassified and Service matters of Civilian Employees in DRDO;
b. Truth of statements made in Parliament; c. Acts done and submissions made in open Courts and other statutory forums, when the matter is no longer subjudice and no further decisions are due to be pronounced;
d. Statements made by DRDO spokesman on TV channel about an individual Civilian Employee of DRDO.
e. Misappropriation of Public Property in DRDO in connivance with Audit.
f. CGHS facilities so the civilian employees of DRDO. g. Provident Fund, Salary increments, Pension Accounts and Service Recorded etc of civilian employees of DRDO;
h. Forgery in Salary Bill of a civilian employee of DRDO. i. Non filing of Annual Confidential Reports of a civilian employee of DRDO.1
j. Assessment criteria adapted in the case of a civilian employees of DRDO whose service records were lost and whose ACRs were also not available.
k. TELEX retirement without notice of a living civilian employee on a day other than the last day of the month.
4. Definition of 'Corruption and 'Violation of Human Rights' purported to be followed by government departments while deciding the on the category the information being sought under the RTI Act.
5. Reasons for any discrimination in the matter of furnishing Unclassified and Service Matter information about the civilian employees of DRDO vis-à-vis those of civilian employees of other ministries/ departments, where such information is readily obtainable under the RTI Act"
To this he received a response on 11.9.07 from Shri D.C. Verma, CPIO and SO, DOPT as follows:
"Para 1 The DRDO is a Security and Intelligence Organization which is dedicatedly working for achieving technological self reliance of Weapon Systems for Armed forced. Information in the organization relates to classified projects of the services. The Government, therefore, came to conclusion that it should be exempt from the ambit of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the organization was included in the Second Schedule to the Act.
Para 2 May be clarified from DRDO.
Para 3, 4 & 5: DRDO is an organization covered under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005. As such no information can be revealed about the organization without the directions of the competent authority. Only information regarding human rights violation and corruption can be given under Section
24. Para 6 Under Proactive disclosure (RTI) duties and functions of CPIOS and Appellate Authorities of this Department are given. As far as addresses of the PIOs it is to be uploaded."
Not satisfied Dr. Tyagi moved his first appeal before Ms. Anuradha Chagti, OSD, DOPT in which he cited a decision taken by this Commission, as follows:
2"The PMO too had tried the same technique to pass on the responsibility to DRDO. However, after the CIC's judgment pass in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00819 (R. C. Tyagi vs. PMO) dated 1.8.2007; the DRDO has now submitted its version of information through PMO, without the applicant ever having sought information from DRDO. This judgment is covered in a PTI release and should also be available on the internet. The records of my RTI application to DOPT and your reply dated 11.9.2007 on it too have been put on record before CIC and copy has been given to PMO too vide latter's Ref. No. RTI/16/2006-PMA dated 14.8.2007."
Upon this appellate authority Ms. Chagti responded in her order as follows:
"The para-wise information sought by the applicant is given as under:-
i. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 has excluded certain intelligence and security organizations including DRDO from the purview of the Act. However, information sought for in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission. DRDO has vide their letter No. C- TEC/02/2091/P/2007 dated 4th October, 2007 has intimated that they have appointed various Scientists/ Officers as Appellate Authority/ CPIO/PIOs/APIOs in the estts/ labs/ HQ to look after activities relating to the RTI Act. They appear to have been appointed to look into the allegations of corruption and violation of human rights, the information of which are not excluded under Section 24 of the Act.
ii. (a) to (g)-Exemption has already been provided to the organization under the Act which has approval of the Parliament. Genuine grievances can be brought before the Central Information Commission under the provisions of the Act.
iii. Para iii to v- The replies to the information sought have already been given vide CPIO's letter of even number dated 11.9.2007. However, it is intimated that official addresses of the CPIOs and Appellate Authorities of DoPT are already available on the website http;//www.persmin.nic.in."
Upon this Dr. Tyagi has moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"a) Summon the respondents;
3
b) Call for duly verified replies from respondents.
c) Direct immediate furnishing of the information sought.
d) Award cost and compensation to the appellant.
e) Order prosecution of Respondents."
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 20.3.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Meerut.
Dr. R. C. Tyagi.
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi Ms. Anuradha S. Chagti, DS (DOPT).
Shri R. K. Girdhar, US (RTI, DOPT).
Dr. R. C. Tyagi read out the record of a decision taken by the Cabinet Secretary in which it was agreed that the application of the Defence Ministry and the CBI for exemption from the RTI Act was not agreed to. He has also quoted sec. 19(2) of the Act to state that the stand taken by the DOPT is in violation of that section of the RTI Act.
In response to the arguments of appellant Dr. Tyagi, Ms Chagti, Dy. Secy., DOPT submitted that the public authority can supply only such information that it holds. It cannot go into the merits or demerits of the decision itself which is what the appellant Dr. Tyagi is seeking in the present case.
DECISION NOTICE The DRDO is listed at Sr. No. 20 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005. Both CPIO & Appellate Authority have been at pains to explain the grounds on which it has been so included by the DOPT in issuing the notification published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette Part-II Sec. 3 sub sec. 1 dated 23.8.08. It is, therefore, clear that the information held by the DOPT and disclosable under the Right to Information Act has in fact been disclosed. The Order of this Commission cited by appellant Dr. Tyagi i.e. Judgment passed on 1.8.07 in the case of Dr. R.C. Tyagi vs. Prime Minister's Office in File No. 4 CIC/WB/A/2006/00819 has no relevance in that sense that this decision concerns the information to be provided by the Prime Minister's Office. In that case we had held as follows:
"Unhappily, the response from the CPIO, PMO is defective on the following grounds:
1. The response to appellant Shri Tyagi does not state that the records available with the PMO access to which would constitute a 'Right to Information' u/s 2(j) were not available on the subject. This has only been provided to us in response to our notice in a second appeal. Even had no further action been taken in light of the letter of Defence Minister of 19.3.'05 cited above, that could have been the content of the response.
2. The appellant has been advised by CPIO to move a separate application with the Ministry of Defence without taking recourse to sec. 6(3) for no justifiable reason."
The present appeal seeks information not held by the Ministry of Defence, but by a distinctly separate public authority, the DRDO, an organisation to which, by merit of being listed in the second Schedule, the RTI Act 2005 does not apply. The appeal therefore, being unsustainable, is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 20.3.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 20.3.2009 5