Central Information Commission
Rajesh Das vs Central Vigilance Commission on 13 October, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/105128
Rajesh Das ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan,
GPO Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/09/2021
Date of Decision : 08/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2019
CPIO replied on : 15/05/2019
First appeal filed on : 20/06/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 29/07/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/01/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.04.2019 seeking the following information:
Q. No. 1:- Information about (i) official meaning (ii)official necessity about Z plush (+) security arrangement to Indian citizens & accordingly who takes decision for whom for such type security to be provided?
Q. No. 2:-Pl. issue official role of Central Vigilance Commission, subject to provided information No. 1 & accordingly whether cabinet approval needed officially before taking such decision?
Q. No. 3:- PI. issue information about each person; designation (vide constitution of India) who are presently facilitated with Z plush (+) security in our country Bharat & accordingly whether The CVC himself with due respect officially satisfied about each official arrangement /each personalities subject to provided information no 1;2 (Yes/No)?
Q. No. 4:--Whether Mr. Mohan Bhagwat (Chief of RSS-Rastriya Swaym Sebak Sangh) is being facilitated with above said Z plush(+) security arrangement.(Yes/No), if Yes--PI issue information about its official base & also provide official opinion by The CVC about the matter & whether He himself officially satisfied (Yes/No)?
Q. No. 5:-PI issue information about expenditure cost per person per day for above said Z plus(+) security arrangement & accordingly same information for a common citizen's life now a days?
Q. No. 6-Whether The CVC himself, with due respect officially satisfied about duration of time period for activation of warrant issued by a court as per existing system;(Yes/No);If No-Pl. issue information about administrative reform by The CVC.
Q. No.7:- Whether the activities by political parties contravening values vide Supreme Court's judgment (inside/outside Parliament) attracts official action; penalties by The CVC naturally --voluntarily; (Yes/No)? If Yes; pl. issue information about same; no. of cases, name of political parties against whom The CVC taken action during last 20 years & 2 accordingly if No ;on whom official accountability will be fixed; penalty imposed or whether the Supreme court's judgments are officially defective?
Q. No. 7 (a) Pl also issue information about current topic about public movement regarding Sabarimala temple matter-vot bank creation outside parliament (in past Sahabanu case- bill passed in Parliament)subject to provided information no.7;NB both time ruling political party done it -.
Q. No.8:- Pl. issue copies of reports by the CVC as submitted to the xx Supreme Court of India; about the matter of job termination of Director CBI- Mr Alok Verma & whether same reports are restricted for PRESS Notification by The CVC.(as matter is closed) vide Section 4 subsection 1( C); subsection 1(D) / RTI ACT 2005 ?
Q. No.9:-Whether any official action taken by The CVC; New Delhi for stopping illegal mining; non cleaning river Ganga (although Supreme Court orders given & accordingly 5-6 saints/Matri Sadan Ashram-Haridwar lost their life during hunger fast about the matter including Prof. G.D. Agarwal whose dead body even not provided to said ASHRAM (after organ donation to hospital --AIMS; New Delhi)-hunger fast by other saints still continuing)YES/NO ?
If YES ;PI issue copy of same. & accordingly If NO --On whom (Supreme Court of India/union Govt, of India/The CVC-New Delhi) accountability will be fixed for official murder of said 5-6 saints-others in upcoming days(who are/will in hunger fast ) in name of protection of river Ganga in our country; Whether any official restriction Or The CVC to go about the spots at river GANGA practically those are being obstructed( through violation of Govt. of India's program to clean .)?
Q. No.10:-PI. issue information about any Kar-seva program by RSS (Rastriya Swayam Sebak Sangh) for river Ganga cleaning as like as demolition of Babri mazid reported to The CVC; New Delhi & pl also provide information about administrative reform made-implemented by The CVC with due respect subject to above provided information's no 1 to 9."3
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 15.05.2019. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2019. FAA's order dated 29.07.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: B B Roy, Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the specific information sought for by him in the RTI Application has not been provided to him. He further explained the relevance of the queries raised by him in the RTI Application to urge that the citizens of the country are entitled to know such information.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for in the RTI Application is in the form of questionnaire and yet whatever information was permissible to be provided has been indicated in their reply. He further submitted that the Commission has also held in a catena of decisions that the nature of information as sought for in the instant RTI Application is not covered under the RTI Act.
The Appellant objected to the contentions of the CPIO and further insisted for relief to be provided to him particularly on point no.8 of the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not sought for any specific information, rather his queries express conjecture and relate to multiple subject heads seeking interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculation.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is 4 unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) The same judgment records another relevant observation suggesting that impractical demand for information under the RTI Act is counterproductive to the tenets of transparency and probity espoused thereunder in the following words:
"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 5 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. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7