Central Information Commission
Mr.V K Garg vs Prime Minister Office on 4 October, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000077
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4 October 2012
Date of decision : 4 October 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri V K Garg,
Advocate, RTI Activist,
18/1, GF, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi - 110 007.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prime Minister's Office,
South Block, New Delhi - 110 101.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri S.E. Rizwi, DS & CPIO
(ii) Shri Sanjeev Gupta, SO & CAPIO
(iii) Shri Subhendu Hota, SO & CAPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up for the hearing in spite of notice. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought some 14 sets of correspondence made between the Prime Minister/PMO with a host of organisations like the CBI, DRI, ED, RAW etc concerning the 2G Scam. The CPIO had transferred some of these queries to other public authorities while also responding to the Appellant with the observation that the desired information could not be disclosed being exempt under subsection 1(c), (g) and
(h) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority CIC/SM/A/2012/000077 had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. We have carefully considered the RTI requests and the response of the CPIO. The information sought strictly relates to the correspondence made between the PM/PMO with all these bodies, many of those already exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act under Section 24 of this Act. Before responding to the Appellant, somebody should have first found out if, indeed, any such correspondence had taken place on the 2G scam with any of these organisations directly. In the scheme of things, it is very unlikely that the Prime Minister of India or the PMO would enter into correspondence with individual investigating or intelligence agencies on any such matters. Instead of routinely seeking exemption under one or the other provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, it would always be better to first find out if the information itself exists and only then to decide if the information could be disclosed or not. In the present case, we have a feeling that the concerned office in the PMO had not verified the records to find out if indeed such correspondence had ever been made. Needless to say, if any report or letter written by any of these organisations to their respective nodal departments had been forwarded to the PMO by the respective department in connection with any query from the PMO, that information is not what the Appellant has sought. All that he has wanted is to get the copies of the correspondence and other related documents directly arising between the PMO and those organisations.
5. Keeping the above in view, we direct the CPIO to verify the records again and to confirm to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order if any such correspondence with any of these organisations actually exists and if so, if this could be disclosed subject to the various exemptions CIC/SM/A/2012/000077 provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Preferably, the CPIO should address each of the 14 queries separately and confirm if the desired information exists and if it can be disclosed. If the information or some of it can be disclosed, the CPIO shall send the same to the Appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000077