Central Information Commission
Mr.Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 20 July, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000138 (Akshay Malhotra vs. Delhi Postal Circle) Dated 20.7.2012 This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated 1.6.2011. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 20.7.2012. Appellant not present but he has spoken to me on telephone. The Department is repented by Ms. Raj Kishori, Asstt. Director (PG) and Inspector Brij Bhushan Arya. On my suggestion, Ms. Raj Kishori has also spoken to the appellant on telephone.
2. During the hearing, she admits that there has been some delay in responding to the RTI applications filed by the appellant. She assures the Commission that it would be her endeavour that the RTI applications are responded to the prescribed period. However, during the hearing certain other issues have been raised which need to be briefly addressed. Ms. Kishori submits that the appellant has been filing RTI applications with the office of DG and on transfer they reach after a long time and this is contributory factor to the delay in responding to the RTI applications. The appellant is advised on telephone that the RTI applications should be addressed only to the CPIO concerned in future so asto cut down delays.
3. Another issue that has come up is that appellant raises too many queries in the RTI applications that it disproportionately diverts the resources of the Department. The appellant is advised to raise pertinent queries the response to which is either useful to him in person or to the society in general. It is also explained to him that RTI is a tool to good governance but this tool should be used only when necessary.
4. In this context, it will be apt to extract the Supreme Court observations in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, to the effect that the querists should not exercise their right in such a manner so asto compel the public authorities to spend 70% of their time in responding only to the RTI applications, to the detriment of their normal functioning. Para 37 of the order is reproduced below-
"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 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 totransparency 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
5. In view of the above, notice issued to Ms. Raj Kishori is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner 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.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. Shri Raj Kishori Asstt. Director (Public Grievances), O/o the CPMG, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot, Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Shri Akshay Malhotra KP-142, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34